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

Annotations already communicate the read-only, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds the useful context that only 'authorized' campaigns are returned, which helps set agent expectations about access scoping. It does not disclose additional behavioral details like sorting or pagination beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before listing filters. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple, read-only search tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the absence of a note about the return shape, but no output schema is provided and the search semantics are reasonably inferable.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description echoes the query parameter's coverage of name, channel, and job type, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides for limit, query, and status.

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 ('searches') and resource ('authorized reactivation campaigns') and enumerates the filter dimensions: name, status, channel, and job type. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling search tools like search-broadcast-campaigns and search-referral-campaigns.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to find reactivation campaigns by filters. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives such as preview-reactivation-campaign, leaving some routing to inference.

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