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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: it returns the full per-call breakdown and extracted fields, which warns the agent the payload scales with campaign size. It does not mention pagination or truncation for large campaigns, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and closed with the usage cue. No restatement of the name or title and no wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating status, aggregate summary, and per-call outcomes. It falls slightly short on volume/pagination behavior for what could be a large per-call list.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains campaign_id as the UUID from start_campaign. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 ('Returns') and a precisely enumerated resource: campaign status, aggregate summary, and every call's outcome with status, per-call summary, and extracted fields. This granularity distinguishes it from list_campaigns (catalog-level) and get_call (single-call), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use to track progress after start_campaign' gives a clear triggering context and names the sibling that precedes it. It lacks any explicit when-not or exclusion (e.g., use list_campaigns to discover IDs first), so guidance is clear but not complete.

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