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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Free' (a zero-cost operation) and the existence of a default 'General Outreach' campaign, which affects how an agent interprets an empty or unfiltered result.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does; 'Free.' is a compact cost signal. No wasted text, though it is short enough that a little more guidance would have fit.

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?

With no output schema, describing the shape of the result (brief, status, creator-stage counts) is exactly the right compensation, and the three params are fully covered by the schema. Minor gap: no pagination or result-size expectations, which matters for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three params documented (page, limit, status enum). The description's mention of 'status' refers to a returned field rather than the filter parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists your campaigns') and even names the fields returned (brief, status, creator counts per stage). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_campaign_status, which could overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the read tool for campaigns. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how it relates to get_campaign_status or create_campaign, and no stated prerequisites.

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