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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutation side effect ('Create') and the return value, but it omits any information about authentication requirements, side effects beyond creation, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, though this is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description only covers the main action and return value, leaving parameter semantics, usage context, and operational details entirely unexplained. The presence of an output schema helps for return values but does not address the missing input guidance.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (intent, count, options, vertical, access_token, tenant_api_key). The description only mentions return values, not what each input does, so it completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('a campaign') and explicitly states the return value ('campaign_id + first telemetry snapshot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign, which is a read operation.

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 tool is for creating campaigns, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to sibling tools or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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