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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by noting that campaigns start in 'draft' status and must be activated via update_campaign, and it lists the return fields (campaign_id, name, status, budget, screen_count, dates). This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover auth requirements or potential errors.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings (summary, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, example) and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every section earns its place, and the example is appropriately detailed without being bloated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested targeting objects) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: the draft status lifecycle, return values, and a realistic invocation example. This provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how parameters combine in practice (e.g., nested targeting with geo and venue_types), which clarifies correct usage beyond individual schema descriptions. This justifies a 4.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Create a new advertising campaign targeting DOOH screens.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_media_buy or create_experiment by explicitly naming the campaign object and the DOOH context.

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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear scenarios (setting up campaigns, targeting venues/locations/audiences, allocating budget) and explicitly points to update_campaign for a follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like create_media_buy, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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