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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' and 'Filter by status', but does not mention pagination (cursor/limit), authentication (apiKey), the required orgSlug, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and a key filter option.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the minimal description is not complete. It omits critical details like pagination behavior, response format, required fields, and authentication, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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 compensate. It only explains the 'status' parameter via 'Filter by status', leaving limit, cursor, apiKey, and orgSlug entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 states the tool lists communication campaigns (WhatsApp/email) for the organization, using a specific verb 'List' and a resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like comms_get_campaign (single campaign), comms_create_campaign, and comms_send_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 implies usage when one needs to list campaigns and mentions filter by status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, leaving the guidance implicit.

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