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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: drafts are included in results and ordering follows display order, plus the campaignId vs. GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID resolution. It does not discuss pagination or result size, hence 4 not 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads. Minor duplication of the environment-variable fallback that already appears in the schema description keeps it from a 5.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's fallback semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the campaignId/GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID behavior without adding format or constraint detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (participant resources configured for your GrowSurf program), and scopes it further with 'including drafts'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like growsurf_list_campaign_rewards or growsurf_list_campaigns without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the read operation for program resources, contrasted with the create/update/delete siblings. But the description never says when to reach for it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that a program must already exist / campaignId must resolve).

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