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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those flags: creatives always land as pending_approval and must be approved before publishing, and it lists the fields returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause names the action and object. Every subsequent clause adds meaningful detail about returned fields, approval behavior, or follow-up tools. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and what the agent should do next. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but the required parameter and platform constraints are already covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 67%, with platform and workspaceId already documented. The description adds campaign-level context but does not provide additional meaning for adCampaignId or workspace fallback beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the parameter work.

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: 'List the creatives of an ad campaign'. It also enumerates the exact return dimensions (status, approval status, platform review status, copy), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_ad_campaigns or get_ad_campaign.

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?

Provides clear context for when to call the tool and explicitly directs the agent to use campaignstack_approve_ad_creative / campaignstack_reject_ad_creative on the results. It does not spell out explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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