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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the cost side effect with 'Spends credits'. However, it says nothing about whether the work is asynchronous, whether it can be re-run on the same campaign, what happens to already-worked contacts, or whether a confirmation step is expected.

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 action and followed immediately by the credit cost. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is terse enough that a little more structure could have carried prerequisites without bloat.

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 single-parameter, open-world action with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and that it costs credits, which is the essential minimum given annotations handle safety. It falls short on execution semantics an agent would want before spending credits: is it immediate or background, is it repeatable, and does it require a confirmation or sufficient balance first.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already tells the agent that 'id' is the campaign id. The description only indirectly frames the id as the campaign whose contacts get worked, adding marginal meaning. 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?

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: send the crew to work a campaign's contacts. That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_campaign and import_campaign_contacts, which set campaigns up rather than execute them. The only weakness is the internal jargon 'crew', which an agent must infer means the sending/outreach system.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The description implies the campaign must already exist with contacts (otherwise there is nothing to work), but the prerequisites and the choice versus per-contact tools like knock or send_email are left entirely to inference.

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