Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Ships as a full prompt kit with step-by-step instructions and a 30-day support promise' is commercial packaging, not behavior: it never says whether the call is read-only, whether it produces a static template or generated content, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences of marketing copy where 'no prompt engineering needed' and the '30-day support promise' earn no place for an agent selecting a tool. The limited functional content is not front-loaded and is buried inside promotional framing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool complexity is low (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the description could easily be complete, yet it never states what is produced or how it differs from sibling libraries. The 'restaurant & brand intelligence' framing actively muddies the picture for a marketing campaign library.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'query' parameter is already documented in the schema as scoping the analysis. The description adds no further meaning about how query is interpreted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description reads as a sales pitch ("AI-powered restaurant & brand intelligence pack", "no prompt engineering needed") rather than a statement of what the tool does. It restates the name with 'mkt campaign library workflow' and adds a puzzling 'restaurant & brand' domain, so an agent cannot tell what operation occurs or what is returned. It also gives no differentiation from the mkt-scene-library / mkt-sop-core / mkt-data-spec siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information anywhere in the text. Nothing tells the agent how to pick this over the several other mkt-* library tools, and no invocation context is implied beyond the generic 'generate a workflow'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.