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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description's burden is lower. It usefully adds pagination behavior, newest-first ordering, and the set of returned fields, plus the notable exclusion of steps. It says nothing about default page size, cursor lifecycle, or what an empty page looks like.

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 no filler: the first gives the operation, ordering, and returned fields; the second gives the exclusion and the alternative route. Return-value information is front-loaded before the caveat, which is the right priority.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields (name, status, audience, schedule, recipient count) is exactly the right compensation, and the get_campaign pointer closes the main gap. What's missing is pagination mechanics — how to use cursor and the limit ceiling — which matters for a tool whose entire premise is paging.

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 has to carry the parameter load. It does explain the status values (draft, live, paused) and implies pagination via 'page through', and the project scoping. However, limit (default 50, max 200) and cursor usage are never described, leaving two of four parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 ('Page through a project's campaigns') plus scope and ordering ('newest first'), and distinguishes itself from get_campaign by declaring steps are omitted. An agent can immediately tell this is the collection-level read for campaigns.

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 to get_campaign when it needs a single campaign's emails, which is the main foreseeable confusion. It does not address how this differs from sibling list tools such as list_broadcasts or list_campaign_enrollments, so the alternative-mapping is only partial.

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