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

Exceeds the annotation baseline (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that the campaign is ALWAYS created paused regardless of arguments, that nothing is scheduled and nothing happens on LinkedIn at call time, that dashboard-equivalent checks (plan, Sales Navigator, LinkedIn account) run, and that the engine executes later under daily/weekly limits, business hours and pacing. It also states the return value ('Returns the campaign id').

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 critical constraint (created paused, only launch_campaign activates) is front-loaded and the rest is substantive, not filler. The 'nothing scheduled / nothing happens on LinkedIn' idea is stated twice, a minor redundancy that keeps it just under perfect.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites (plan, Sales Navigator, LinkedIn account), the side-effect profile (nothing happens immediately), the returned id, and the follow-up tools needed to make the campaign useful. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and know what comes next.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by tying targeting parameters to the workflow — job_titles/search URL vs lead_source 'list' plus add_leads_to_campaign — which the schema does not explain. Daily limit, locations, companies and idempotency are left entirely to the schema, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 ('Create a new campaign') plus the key distinguishing trait (opens with a connection note, always created paused). It explicitly names the one sibling that can activate it (launch_campaign), so an agent can separate it from launch/resume without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the routing conditions directly: use job_titles or a LinkedIn/Sales Navigator search URL for searched leads, or lead_source 'list' when the people will be added later with add_leads_to_campaign. It also states that message content is written afterwards via set_campaign_messages, and that only launch_campaign activates — explicit alternatives rather than inference.

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