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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deleted programs are filtered out, IDs are included, and no campaign ID binding is needed. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the two facts an agent needs (deleted items excluded, no campaign ID required). No filler.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter list tool the description supplies everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description correctly signals that no GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID binding is required. There is nothing further for it to add.

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+resource ('List the GrowSurf programs') plus the scope ('available to the bound team'), which cleanly separates it from the singular growsurf_get_campaign and the reward/resource list siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, and it uses 'programs' while the tool name and the rest of the toolset use 'campaigns', a terminology mismatch an agent must bridge.

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?

'including their IDs for program selection' and 'Does not require GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID' both describe when this tool is the right entry point (discovering a campaign ID before calling the many campaign-scoped tools). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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