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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: result ordering is by created_at rather than scheduled_at, page continuation goes through next_cursor, and PROCESSING is a finalization state rather than a failure or backlog signal.

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?

Three tight sentences, each with a distinct job: scope, result ordering plus pagination, status interpretation. The most load-bearing constraint (ordering by created_at, not scheduled_at) is stated early with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the pagination, ordering, and status semantics an agent most often gets wrong are covered. Gaps remain for a 9-parameter tool: no mention of the limit default/cap, the required organization_id, or what the goal and use_case enum values mean.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does map five facets to parameters plus explains the PROCESSING status value. However, organization_id, limit, cursor (only alluded to via next_cursor), and the enum meanings of goals and use_cases receive no explanation.

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?

"Find simulation campaigns" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the facets listed (name, lifecycle state, goal, use case, schedule) match the schema's filter parameters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_campaign_summary, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 search facets imply this is the discovery tool to use before fetching a summary, but the description never says when to use it instead of get_campaign_summary or list_organizations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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