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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description earns credit for disclosing the severity model — required items block the launch, warnings are advisory — which materially shapes how an agent should act on results. It stops short of saying what triggers items or whether results change after fixes.

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 what the tool gives you, then the interpretation rule. No filler to remove.

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 low-complexity read-only tool this is close, but with no output schema and a fully undocumented id parameter, the description should say what the id refers to and roughly what a checklist entry contains. It explains severity but not the request.

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% and the single parameter is a bare `id` with no type context, yet the description says nothing about what that id identifies (presumably a campaign). The agent must infer both the entity and the format from sibling names alone.

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 names the resource clearly via its content ("What has to be fixed before launch") and defines its two item classes (required vs warnings). The action verb is only implied by the tool name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as launch_campaign or preview_campaign, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Before launch" implies the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus preview_campaign or launch_campaign, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The second clause explains how to read results rather than when to select the tool.

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