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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it provides meaningful traits: approval is not a guaranteed publish ('configured deterministic worker may publish it') and is subject to shared quotas and suppression. It does not explain failure modes, whether approval consumes quota, or whether the action is reversible, but it does reveal non-obvious side effects.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a necessary behavioral caveat without redundancy. Every part 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description provides the high-level purpose but does not explain return values, error conditions, or the semantics of expectedVersion and idempotencyKey, which are essential for correctly invoking an approval tool. This is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it does not mention expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, or how id maps to the prepared public payload. The phrase 'prepared public payload' faintly implies id, but there is no substantive parameter guidance. This leaves the agent to infer the meaning of all three required fields.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('prepared public payload for an authorized campaign'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_notice by signaling that the payload already exists and this is a go/no-go step. It is slightly indirect because it never explicitly says 'notice', but the meaning is recoverable from context.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: the campaign must already be authorized and the payload already prepared. It also surfaces constraints ('subject to shared quotas and suppression') that an agent should consider before invoking it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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