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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the tenant-scoping context; it says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the scope stated up front. It is efficient, though so terse that there is little structure to speak of.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the return and safety story need no explanation. However, for a listing tool with a free-form status filter and no enums, the description leaves the agent without guidance on valid status values or paging expectations.

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%, so limit, offset, and status are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no extra meaning — notably it does not enumerate valid status values, which the schema leaves as a free string with no enum.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('outbound call campaigns') with an ownership scope ('authenticated business'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_leads or list_agents by resource name, though it does not explicitly acknowledge those 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., when to use list_recent_calls vs this). The only usage signal is the implicit 'authenticated business' scoping.

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