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

The description states the operation is 'Free, read-only', matching the readOnlyHint annotation and adding an explicit guarantee. It also discloses the tool's return scope: every active public campaign plus campaigns from communities the user belongs to, with each item clarifies the difference between content and take_action campaigns. It does not cover pagination or infrequent details, but the annotations already establish a safe read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, giving the core behavior first: 'every active public campaign plus campaigns from the user's communities'. It then adds useful kind details and workflow guidance without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, read-only listing with two optional parameters described in the schema, so the description no need extensive output details. The description covers what is returned, the kind distinction, and the recommended next step. An agent can safely call this tool and interpret the results correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for 'kin d' and 'lim it', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters beyond the schema's info; it discusses 'kind' in terms of results rather than filtering.

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 tool's purpose: discovering campaigns the connected user can join and earn from, including active public campaigns and community campaigns. It also defines the 'content' versus 'take_action' kind distinction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the similarly broad siblings 'find_opportunities' or 'list_campaigns'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool — the user wants campaigns they can participate in and earn from. It also gives a workflow signal by directing the agent to follow with 'get_campaign_brief'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like 'list_campaigns' or 'find_opportunities'.

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