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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add the key trait: "Read-only" plus the full set of possible lifecycle statuses, so the agent knows the rows are stateful queue entries. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and any notes on how failed or skipped rows are handled, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

Two short sentences with the resource and its status set front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and safety note. No filler, though the status list is long and largely duplicates the schema enum.

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?

Usage context is otherwise plain: five flat parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Given that structure, the description covers what the rows are, the possible states, the one meaningful filter, and the read-only nature, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 60%: id and limit/offset are documented in the schema, but status and account_id are bare. The description compensates partially by enumerating the status values and explaining that account_id narrows to a single account, though it does not say that status acts as a server-side filter.

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 names the specific resource (contacts in the campaign's LinkedIn queue) and what is returned (each contact with its status), which clearly distinguishes it from list_campaign_linkedin_accounts and get_campaign_linkedin_stats. The verb is implied by the leading noun phrase rather than stated, and no sibling is named as a contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Read-only" tells the agent this is a safe inspection call, and "optionally for one account" conveys the account_id filter case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_campaign_replies or get_campaign_linkedin_stats, and no prerequisites are given.

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