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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-structured behavioral context by disclosing the pagination flow ('Follow nextCursor'), which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth scope, or result caps.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed immediately by pagination behavior and the alternative tool. Zero filler; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape (including nextCursor) need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety posture. The remaining gap is thin coverage of the undocumented limit/cursor input semantics, but for a simple paged list tool the description is nearly complete.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It implies brandId ('for the selected brand') and cursor usage ('Follow nextCursor'), but never explains the limit parameter or gives any format/range guidance, leaving part of the parameter set undocumented in both schema and description.

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') scoped to a brand, and contrasts itself with the sibling get_campaign by describing this as summaries versus get_campaign's exact snapshot. An agent can distinguish it from get_campaign and the prepare/schedule/approve campaign tools 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 the agent: use this to list summaries, and 'use get_campaign to review an exact campaign snapshot.' It names the alternative and the condition selecting it, though it does not spell out when-not-to-use or prerequisites like required brand access.

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