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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and nondestructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns only campaign identities (not full objects), is bounded by pagination, and explicitly excludes content fields and sending capability. This goes beyond the safety annotations to set precise expectations about output scope.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists exclusions. There is no fluff or redundancy; every clause earns its place by clarifying scope and what the tool does not do.

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?

Given the output schema exists (documenting return structure) and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers scope, exclusions, and limitations. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing; the bounded page, website ownership, and inability to send are all stated.

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 covers all parameters (limit, cursor, websiteId) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the result being identities and bounded pages, which indirectly relates to limit/cursor, but it does not provide specific parameter syntax or additional semantics beyond the schema. It neither fills a coverage gap nor adds significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'campaign identities' for a specific scope: one website owned by the authenticated Supovia organization. It explicitly lists exclusions (recipient lists, subjects, content, ids, metadata) and clarifies that sending is not possible, distinguishing it from sibling send tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context: requires a websiteId for a website owned by the authenticated org, returns a bounded page, and cannot send campaigns. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for acquiring full campaign details, but the exclusions imply that if content is needed, another tool must be used. This is clear enough but lacks explicit 'use this when' instructions relative to siblings.

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