onboarding_campaign_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can return a checkout link if blocked on credits, which is useful context about conditional outputs. However, it doesn't describe permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'readiness' evaluation entails. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two brief but informative sentences about additional behaviors. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, conditional behaviors) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose and key conditional behavior (checkout link), but lacks details about parameter meanings, error cases, and what 'readiness evaluation' involves. The output schema existence helps, but more context would be beneficial.

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 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It only explains the 'start_now' parameter's purpose ('to attempt campaign launch'). Other parameters like 'product_slug', 'outbound_per_day', 'checkout_plan', and URL parameters remain unexplained in the description, leaving most parameter meanings unclear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate readiness and optionally start campaign immediately.' It specifies the verb ('evaluate readiness', 'start campaign') and resource ('campaign'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its use 'after onboarding reaches targeting approval.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'list_campaigns' or 'run_full_agentic_onboarding'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this after onboarding reaches targeting approval.' It also mentions an alternative action via the 'start_now' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list.

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