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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (status, answers, share link, cost), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any edge cases or potential caveats (e.g., whether archived campaigns are included, if there is pagination, or if the cost figure is live). With annotations covering the safety dimension, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Every campaign on this account') and packs the return details into a compact list. There is zero redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 is simple (one required parameter), has an output schema (not shown but present), and annotations cover safety. The description provides a high-level summary of the return content. It does not specify ordering, filtering, or archival status, but for a straightforward list tool with an output schema, this is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of distinction from list_campaigns, but that falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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?

The schema description for apiKey is 100% covered (it explains the format and origin). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 states a clear verb ('list'), a specific resource ('campaigns on this account'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, answers so far, share link, cost). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns (which might have a different scope) and get_campaign/get_campaign_details (which target a single 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to get an overview of your own campaigns' or any comparison to list_campaigns, which likely has a similar purpose but potentially different scope. Given the many sibling tools, the lack of explicit usage exclusions leaves the routing decision to the agent's inference.

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