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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important operational context: pagination defaults and maximums, read-only status, module-gating behavior, and how to interpret a 403. This is materially richer than the structured annotations alone.

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 front-loaded and organized around the core list operation, then the creation prohibition, then the module-gating caveat. It is appropriately sized for a tool with important error-handling nuances, though some phrases repeat what the schema or annotations already state.

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 eight optional parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the practical calling context: what the tool does, filtering/pagination defaults, what it cannot do, and how to interpret a 403. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 documents all eight parameters, including defaults and enums. The description repeats the page-size default and maximum and adds the sort order ('newest first'), but it does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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: 'List the account email and SMS campaigns, newest first, with filters and pagination.' It also distinguishes this list operation from campaign creation and from the write operations (pause/resume/cancel), so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance and when-not-to-use guidance: campaigns cannot be created through this API, and the agent should point users to the Sweeppea app for new campaigns. It also explains the 403 behavior and warns against misattributing a module-disabled error to this read-only call.

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