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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing. Saying it 'uses the same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI' gestures at auth but names no concrete requirement, permission scope, pagination behavior, or error semantics.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the 'SAGOT' prefix and the website/API/CLI clause consume space without conveying actionable information.

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?

For a three-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition should at minimum explain the required workspaceId and cursor-based pagination. It explains none of this.

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% across three parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description also says nothing about workspaceId being required or about limit/cursor pagination semantics, leaving the agent to infer it all from raw types and constraints.

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 essentially restates the name as 'campaigns.list' and adds only the opaque token 'SAGOT'. It never states plainly that this returns a paginated list of campaigns, nor distinguishes it from siblings like campaigns_get, campaigns_preview, or campaigns_cancel.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus campaigns_get (single campaign) or campaigns_preview. No prerequisites, scope, or exclusions are provided.

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