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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the 'owned' scoping and the campaign-type distinction, but it does not describe behavior like how include_archived interacts with status or what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by one high-value disambiguating sentence. Every word contributes to distinguishing the 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 simple read-only list operation with two optional filters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that 'owned' is not defined and no parameter semantics are given, but the schema and annotations cover the safety and filter basics.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. The agent must rely entirely on the names and enum values for status and include_archived, which are mostly clear but leave the interaction between filters unstated.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List owned marketing campaigns.' The added sentence explicitly separates this tool from Sales outreach campaigns, distinguishing it from sibling list_outreach_campaigns without needing to open either 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?

It clearly indicates the tool's domain: marketing campaigns, not Sales outreach campaigns. It does not name the exact alternative tool or state an explicit condition such as 'use list_outreach_campaigns instead,' but the boundary is unambiguous enough for an agent to route the request correctly.

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