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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and closed-world profile is covered structurally. The description adds lifecycle context but not the consequences an agent would want: whether creating a campaign consumes credits, whether it is reversible, or whether the word "calling" implies any calls are placed immediately. For a create operation with an open question about side effects, this is a modest gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the workflow. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 is simple (2 params, 1 required, no nesting) and the workflow is well covered. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates that a campaign identifier is returned — which the very next step, import_campaign_contacts, presumably needs. That missing handoff detail is the main 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 100%, with both name and goal already documented in the schema (including the goal example). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. No enum or format nuance is supplied.

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: "Start a calling campaign." That distinguishes it from siblings like work_campaign (which works an existing campaign) and import_campaign_contacts (which populates one). It stops short of an explicit negative boundary, but the creation scope 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?

Gives a concrete lifecycle: create here, then add contacts via import_campaign_contacts, then run work_campaign. That sequencing is real guidance an agent can act on and prevents out-of-order calls. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites such as required account credits or permissions.

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