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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering and the set of possible status values, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters existing.

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 wasted words; ordering and status values are delivered immediately. It is efficient though quite terse for a cursor-paginated list tool.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and status values but leaves pagination (limit/cursor) and the shape of returned campaigns undocumented. An agent can call it, but not confidently page through results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three params. It helpfully enumerates the status values (draft, scheduled, sending, sent), which gives meaning to the status filter, but limit and cursor are entirely unexplained – no pagination semantics at all.

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 and resource ('The workspace's campaigns') plus ordering ('newest to oldest'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_campaign, get_campaign_stats, or send_campaign. However it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is the alternative to, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No indication of when to use this list versus preview_campaign_send, get_campaign_stats, or get_account. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance of any kind.

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