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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it is NOT idempotent because it runs LLM analysis plus up to 2 replay crafts, it may take tens of seconds, it bypasses automatic thresholds, and it fails under specific conditions. This gives an agent a genuinely accurate model of side effects and latency. 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?

Four dense sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded first. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, failure conditions, behavioral traits/latency, and result-read pointer. The 'NOT idempotent' flag reinforces the annotation while adding explanatory context rather than merely repeating it.

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-optional-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what happens, how long it takes, failure modes, side effects, and where to retrieve the outcome (campaignstack_get_draft_checkup). The result-read pointer compensates for the absent output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 100% — workspaceId is fully documented ('Defaults to the API key's workspace'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the load adequately.

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, resource, and scope: 'Run a draft checkup for the workspace now'. It distinguishes itself from the automated daily sweep by noting it bypasses evidence thresholds, and from campaignstack_get_draft_checkup by explicitly pointing there for reading results. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its nearest siblings.

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: use it for an on-demand checkup bypassing automatic thresholds, with the alternative being the threshold-gated daily sweep. It also gives concrete failure conditions (pending proposal, fewer than 3 drafts) that tell an agent when NOT to call it, and names the sibling for reading results. It doesn't explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives (e.g., accept/reject checkup), but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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