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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable context: the scope is limited to one website owned by the authenticated organization, pagination is bounded, and content fields are deliberately excluded. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the purpose and immediately conveys the resource and scope. It efficiently lists exclusions and the sending prohibition without any filler or repetition.

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 a comprehensive schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent nature, the description fully explains what is returned, what is excluded, and the operational constraint that sending is not possible. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit, cursor, and websiteId. The description's mention of 'bounded page' adds only contextual framing that aligns with the limit/cursor parameters, providing no new technical meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb (List), a concrete resource (campaign identities), and a scope (one website owned by the authenticated Supovia organization). It also explicitly says what is excluded (recipient lists, subjects, message content, user ids, org ids, metadata) and that campaigns cannot be sent, differentiating it from sibling tools like send_message.

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?

It clearly indicates the use case: retrieving a bounded page of campaign identities, and explicitly rules out getting content or sending campaigns. This implies when to use this tool versus ones that return full campaign details or send messages, though it does not name alternative tools directly.

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