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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this while adding important behavioral nuance: the 'verified' field distinguishes a real platform verdict from an assumption, and the per-channel blocker logic is explained. It also discloses that a missing live channel connection is reported as a blocker and that the platform will refuse the launch itself, which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long but well-structured with clear section headers, front-loaded purpose, and useful return details. Some content, such as the keyword list, is somewhat redundant for an agent that already has the title and schema, but it does not obscure the essential guidance.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return structure including is_launchable, verified, channels, and summary. It also covers when to use the tool, the read-only nature, channel-connection handling, and where to find campaign IDs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents campaign_id as a required integer, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining this is specifically 'The wizard campaign ID' and by listing concrete ID sources through search_campaigns_by_names and create_campaign. This helps an agent obtain the parameter correctly, though it does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a draft campaign is ready to launch, per channel.' It also explicitly disambiguates from sibling launch_campaign by saying 'This is a READ-ONLY check - it does NOT launch anything. Use launch_campaign to actually launch.' An agent can tell what it does and what it is not.

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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' bullets covering pre-launch confirmation, go/no-go after draft edits, and direct user questions. It also gives exclusion guidance: do not ask the user to connect channels earlier in the build because this is the only point where a missing connection matters, and names launch_campaign as the alternative for actually launching.

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