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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: results are ordered most recent first, pagination uses next_cursor, and the response shape is { data, next_cursor, has_more }. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the core action, then covers filtering, pagination, a cross-reference to get_campaign_stats, and the return shape. Every sentence adds necessary operational guidance without redundancy or fluff.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: ordering, filters, pagination mechanics, how to use the returned ids, and the exact response envelope. Combined with annotations declaring read-only and idempotent behavior, no important context is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how cursor comes from a previous call's next_cursor and how the overall pagination loop should work. It does not deeply explain the limit parameter, but the schema already states the default and range.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List broadcast campaigns' with ordering and optional status filtering. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_campaign_stats by telling the agent to use the returned campaign id with that tool. This is unambiguous and differentiated from sibling 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by explaining its default ordering, filterable statuses, and pagination protocol. It points to get_campaign_stats for per-campaign statistics, though it does not explicitly state exclusions for other sibling tools. Overall, the usage context is strong and only lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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