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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value by enumerating the nine checks performed and the meaning of the ready/warn outcomes. It does not disclose the cost of the test click (latency, or whether that click is counted in stats), which is the one behavior an agent would want warned about.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a dense but scannable list of checks, then the outcome semantics. The middle enumeration is run-on, but nearly every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the top-level ready flag and the advisory nature of warn, which is the key return-value semantics. It stops short of describing the per-check result structure (check names, statuses, messages), leaving an agent to discover the payload shape at call time.

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% with a single 'id' parameter already documented as 'Campaign id'. The description's 'one campaign' phrasing reinforces that a single id is expected but adds no format, lookup, or error semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Pre-launch check of one campaign: is it ready for real traffic?' This clearly distinguishes it from get_campaign (fetch data) and set_campaign_status (mutate) among the siblings.

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 'pre-launch' framing gives a clear when-to-use condition. However, it never states when-not to use it or names an alternative (e.g., use get_campaign for a plain config read), so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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