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. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results include active status, exit reason, next step, due date, and the invariant that a contact enters each campaign at most once. It does not mention pagination or ordering.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the list scope and followed by the unique-enrollment invariant. Every clause adds useful semantic detail without repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned well enough: status, exit reason, next step, and due date. It leaves out pagination, ordering, and the contact_id source, which are minor but real gaps for a list endpoint.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for contact_id, so the description should compensate. It implies a single-contact scope through phrases like "a contact" and "every campaign a contact is in," but it does not clarify the ID format, where to obtain it, or whether the ID is required rather than inferred.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing every campaign a contact is in or has been in, with scope covering current and historical enrollments. It implicitly distinguishes this contact-centric view from the sibling list_campaign_enrollments, which likely lists campaign-centric enrollments, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the contact-centric framing: use this to see a single contact's campaign enrollment history. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention related siblings such as get_contact_activity or list_campaign_enrollments.

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