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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds that the call is DB-backed and instant and returns counts only, no people, which tells the agent about latency and payload shape. It stops short of any pagination or limit disclosure, but for a single-campaign counter that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer (counts for one campaign), then notation of the extra fields, then routing to siblings. It is dense and long-winded in places, but every clause carries information an agent needs, particularly the status enumerations that substitute for a missing output schema.

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 fully: it enumerates connection and message statuses, names the extra attached fields, and clarifies priority semantics and what timezoneCoverage means. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or call the tool correctly is missing.

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% for the single campaignId parameter, and the description's 'Get the id from li_list_campaigns' merely restates the schema's own note. No additional format or validation meaning is added, 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 precise verb+resource with scope: counts for ONE campaign across both connection and message stages, plus attached strategy, connectionWaitHours, ICP, priority and timezoneCoverage. The enumerated status vocabularies make clear exactly which counts are returned, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives by intent: li_campaign_contacts for the people behind the counts, li_scheduled_steps for what sends next, li_outreach_analytics for campaign comparison. It also names the prerequisite source for the id (li_list_campaigns), leaving nothing to inference.

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