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

The description outlines selection criteria (active, thresholds), which gives some behavioral insight. With no annotations, it carries the full burden but omits important details like pagination, default ordering, mutability (though likely read-only), and response structure.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus threshold bullets. Every word adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary information.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context. It explains the campaign definition but ignores how to use the parameters or interpret results, making it incomplete for practical invocation.

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 tool description does not mention either parameter (limit, include_inactive). This leaves the agent without any semantic meaning for these parameters, forcing reliance on naming conventions alone.

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 clearly defines what constitutes a campaign with specific thresholds (≥5 actors, ≥3 ASNs, etc.), making the tool's purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like scry_campaign (singular) or scry_asn, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this vs. other scry tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only explains what a campaign is, not the context in which the tool should be invoked or when alternatives are preferred.

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