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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it only prepares, does not pause Meta, requires review of excluded inventory and budget drift, and returns a token to be used later. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and limits, then the critical behavioral warning and next-step routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers scope limits, what prepare does not do, required review actions, and the follow-up token. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Slight gap: no mention of prerequisites or failure states, but the prepare/confirm pattern is adequately explained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains product_refs as a count (1-20) and names expected_scope with its default value; it does not enumerate allowed scope values, but the added semantic value over the bare schema is substantial.

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?

Begins with a specific verb ('Prepare') and clearly scopes the operation: pausing live-verifiable ACTIVE campaigns for 1-20 product refs, with expected_scope=all_live_active_campaigns. The distinction from the confirm sibling is explicit, and the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explains that this is a prepare step that must be followed by passing its pd_confirm_* token to products_delivery_pause_confirm, and explicitly warns that it does not pause Meta. That is clear workflow routing with the relevant sibling named.

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