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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists only 'owned' campaigns, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or default filtering, which are not covered by annotations.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. It clearly states the purpose and the key differentiator. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (list with two optional filters) and an output schema exists, so detailed return value explanations are unnecessary. However, the description lacks context about what 'owned' means (e.g., user-specific context) and whether there are limits on the list. For a straightforward list tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description does not explain the 'status' enum or the 'include_archived' boolean, both of which could benefit from context (e.g., default behavior, interaction between filters). The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'owned marketing campaigns.' It also distinguishes from sales outreach campaigns, which is a specific sibling tool (list_outreach_campaigns). This meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 description explicitly says 'These are separate from Sales outreach campaigns,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not, however, include when-not-to-use or other exclusionary guidance, but the distinction is effective.

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