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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it is required before generate_campaign succeeds, it may be skipped by auto-approval, and it carries the same trust level as clicking Approve in the dashboard. It does not mention required permissions or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single tight paragraph that front-loads the action, then adds dependency and conditional-use details. Every sentence contributes relevant guidance without filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and useful annotations, the description covers why the tool exists, when it is needed versus auto-approval, and user-consent expectations. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that brandId comes from list_brands and strategyId from get_strategy. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb (approves) and resource (draft strategy), and explains the dependency on generate_campaign. It distinguishes itself from generate_strategy, which may auto-approve the strategy.

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?

Explicitly says when the tool is needed ('only needed when generate_strategy didn't already auto-approve it'), gives the condition that triggers that path ('thin/low-confidence website scan'), and states the user-consent requirement. Alternatives are clearly implied via the auto-approval path.

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