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 fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, default page size, ordering of results, or whether drafts/archived items are included by default. For a list endpoint, result-set semantics are exactly the behavior an agent needs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so the brevity is efficient but leaves value on the table.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what a campaign record contains or how pagination metadata is returned. Combined with no usage guidance and a silent 'search' parameter, an agent cannot call this confidently beyond the trivial case.

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 75%, so the schema documents page, limit and search directly, and the description only echoes that a status filter exists. It adds no meaning for the 'status' enum (which has no per-value description in the schema) and never mentions 'search', so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

Clear verb (list) and resource (marketing campaigns), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create-campaign or send-campaign. It does not, however, distinguish itself from read siblings such as get-campaign or get-campaign-stats, leaving the agent to infer that this is the plural/enumerating variant.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this versus get-campaign (single record) or get-campaign-stats, nor any preconditions. The only usage hint is the implied 'status' filter, with no statement of when that filtering should be preferred over fetching all pages.

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