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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: pagination semantics, two distinct sort orders (soonest next email for active, newest first for exited statuses), and the fact that departed rows carry a reason. It does not mention rate limits or what fields beyond the enrollment id a row contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then value semantics, then the cross-tool payoff. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no restatement of the name or title.

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 simple four-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers action, pagination, ordering, status meaning, and the downstream removal workflow. Row shape beyond the enrollment id is unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to compensate.

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 carries the full burden, and it discharges the hardest part by spelling out the five status values and their differing result ordering. "Page through" implies the cursor mechanism and the enrollment id ties results to remove_campaign_enrollment. The limit parameter and its 200 cap are left entirely to the schema.

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?

"Page through the people in a campaign" is a precise verb+resource statement with explicit scope (enrollments belong to a campaign, not to a contact). This cleanly separates it from the sibling list_contact_enrollments, which reads the relationship from the other direction, without either schema being opened.

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 tells you which status values exist and what they mean, so the agent can pick the right call for "who is still in it" versus "who left." It never states when to prefer this over list_contact_enrollments or get_campaign, and gives no prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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