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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds value on top by disclosing ordering (newest first), the fields surfaced (status and discovery stats), and that the call is free of credit cost. It doesn't discuss result size or whether all campaigns are returned unpaginated, which keeps it short of a 5 for a listing tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then the actionable pre-flight rule, then the cost note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padding.

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 one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, ordering and cost, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only gap is that it doesn't mention the status filter or result volume, minor for a free listing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single status parameter is fully documented with its enum in the schema. The description never mentions the status filter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the keyword-seeded crawls on this account') plus what is returned (status and discovery stats) and the ordering (newest first). An agent can distinguish this from the singular get_seed_campaign and from create_seed_campaign without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule with a named sibling: call it before create_seed_campaign to check whether a crawl for the niche is already running. It also gives the consequence of ignoring the advice (duplicate credit spend), which is a stronger form of guidance than a plain recommendation.

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