mojomo_campaign_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the auth requirement (MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY) and a concrete failure mode — refusal for regulated subjects when no claims are cleared in the jurisdiction. That is meaningful beyond-schema behavior, though it doesn't state whether the call is read-only or what the refusal looks like at the call level.

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 tight sentences with zero padding: what you get first, then the jurisdictional refusal condition and auth requirement. Everything 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — it does, naming cleared claims and the verbatim disclosure. Combined with the auth and refusal notes, an agent has enough to call it, though the response envelope size and error signaling remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the slug's provenance and jurisdiction's default. The description adds only indirect meaning, that jurisdiction selection governs clearance and possible refusal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource ('the full brief for one campaign') and enumerates the two payloads it returns (cleared claims, verbatim disclosure), which separates it from the list-style sibling mojomo_campaigns. It stops short of a verb, so it reads more like a resource label than an action, but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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 implies the use case (pull a single campaign's claims and disclosure before producing regulated content) and warns that regulated subjects refuse when nothing is cleared for the jurisdiction. It never explicitly contrasts with mojomo_campaigns or mojomo_assess_campaign, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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