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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety envelope is partly given. The description adds what dimensions are inspected (budget, targeting, creative, landing page, creation mode), which is genuinely useful behavior context, but it never says whether a check writes/records anything (relevant since readOnlyHint is false despite the "vérifier" wording) or what happens on failure. Mild tension between the read-flavored verb and readOnlyHint=false, though not a hard contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first, then the checked attributes. Dense and waste-free, though the colon-list of attributes is a bit unstructured for scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a "check" returns (pass/fail, diagnostics, per-field findings) and it does not. For a validation tool whose entire value is its result, that is a substantive gap alongside the unexplained id parameter.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema says nothing about what the integer identifies. The description implies it is a campaign identifier by saying it verifies "une campagne publicitaire," but never states the id type, source, or whether it is the internal ad_campaigns id versus a platform-side id.

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?

"Vérifier une campagne publicitaire" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical (ad_campaigns, régie meta, tiktok ou linkedin) scopes which campaign types are covered, which separates it from the sibling create_ad_campaign. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling, but an agent can distinguish check vs. create from the verb alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The enumerated attributes (budget, pays, âge, visuel, page de destination, mode de création) imply the pre-launch validation scenario, but the agent must infer it.

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