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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination behavior (nextCursor) which is genuine value, but says nothing about ordering, result count, or rate limits beyond that.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the pagination and follow-up guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers pagination and the get_campaign handoff. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 0%, so the schema documents none of limit, cursor, or brandId semantics. The description only gestures at the cursor ("Follow nextCursor") and never explains the limit cap or the brandId requirement, leaving the burden unmet.

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 and resource ("List saved campaign summaries for the selected brand") and implicitly contrasts with get_campaign by distinguishing summaries from an "exact campaign snapshot." It is clear enough to separate from sibling list_* tools, though it does not name other listers such as list_experiments or list_automations for explicit 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?

Gives concrete next-step routing: paginate via nextCursor, then call get_campaign for a full snapshot. That names the alternative and the condition selecting it. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or what scope the brand selection implies.

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