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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them: archived campaigns are filtered out by default unless status=archived, which an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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 sentences, no filler, with the return contents stated first and the default-filtering caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema to explain, the description is close to complete. It could mention result ordering or result-set size, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values are enumerated in the schema itself. The description supplements this only with the default-filter behavior of the status parameter, so it neither repeats nor substantially extends 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?

The description names the resource (campaigns in this workspace) and the fields returned (status, delivery mode, enrolled/sent/replied counters), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. The plural, workspace-scoped framing distinguishes it from get_campaign, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 archived-hiding rule implies when to pass status=archived, giving useful conditional guidance for the only parameter. However, there is no explicit routing against siblings like get_campaign, campaign_report, or search_contacts, so an agent must infer when this list view is the right call.

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