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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: results are authorization-scoped to the authenticated agency and the returned IDs are the interoperable handle for other campaign tools. It does not describe pagination behavior, though the cursor/limit schema largely covers that.

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?

A single sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler; every clause (ownership scope, ID interoperability) 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description plus annotations together cover scope, safety, and ID usage. Only pagination flow is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the cursor parameter is documented in the schema.

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 100% with three well-documented parameters (limit, cursor, status enum), so the schema carries full parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about limit/cursor/status behavior, so the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (campaigns) plus a scope qualifier ('owned by the authenticated agency'). It also names which sibling tools consume the IDs it returns, so an agent can distinguish it from campaign_create/get/update without opening any schema.

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 mention that returned IDs are 'accepted by campaign_get and campaign_update' makes the intended workflow (discover IDs, then fetch or mutate) clear. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but no sibling competes for the same listing job, so the context is sufficient.

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