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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already cover the safety profile), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: paginated results containing campaigns, channels, values and origin, inclusion of inherited account/platform values, and the caveat that a stored mapping identical to its inherited default cannot be distinguished. It also warns that historical rows may not be immutable due to async refresh — real result-semantics information not present in structured fields.

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 first paragraph is well front-loaded, but the following 'TRACKING TIMING AND TOKEN MEANING' block is longer than the actual tool description and is mostly about lead ingestion timing, ad publish timelines and AD_NAME token expansion — background that does not help an agent select or invoke this search tool.

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?

For a read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential pieces (what matches, what is returned, pagination, inheritance caveat) are present. However, the disproportionate timing discussion crowds out the missing piece — explicit guidance on choosing this tool over its sibling searches — leaving the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so paging, status, sort and visibility semantics are already documented; baseline is 3. The description does clarify that matching runs against resolved/effective UTM values including inherited ones, which sharpens the meaning of the required utm_value parameter, but adds nothing about the other eight parameters.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (find), resource (wizard campaign channels) and match criterion (resolved UTM parameters containing a value), plus the return shape. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts the obvious siblings (search_campaigns_by_names, list_wizard_campaigns, get_campaign_utms), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus search_campaigns_by_names or list_wizard_campaigns; the only routing hint is a passing reference to verifying a saved mapping with get_campaign_utms. The bulk of the text is cautionary background about lead UTM timing rather than selection guidance.

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