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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Free, read-only' plus rich behavioral detail the annotations cannot carry: the two kind categories, what 'human_only' participation means, reward availability, and the crucial constraint that the user performs watch quizzes and the agent never submits them.

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 what the tool discovers, then the item taxonomy, then the quiz handling, then the follow-up step. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; it is slightly long, costing it the top mark.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears responsibility for return-value context, and it does describe item shape (kind field, participation value, watch_quiz.quiz_url / how_to_participate). It omits pagination/limit behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% with only two params, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Filter by campaign kind' by defining the semantics of each enum value ('content' = create a post/thread/video, 'take_action' = concrete action with proof), adding real meaning for the filter.

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 (find/discover) and a precise resource scope: every active public campaign plus campaigns from communities the user belongs to. Distinguishes itself from creation siblings (create_campaign, create_content_campaign) and single-campaign reads (get_campaign) by describing discovery for the connected user.

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?

Gives clear workflow context ('Follow with get_campaign_brief before doing any work') and prescribes the exact handoff for watch quizzes via watch_quiz.quiz_url. However, it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. list_campaigns) or states when not to use it, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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