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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the read-only nature and the default archive-exclusion behavior. It does not mention pagination, ordering, result size limits, or authentication needs, which a list tool with zero annotation coverage should ideally address.

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 with no filler; the resource scope, filter default, and safety profile are all front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, default filtering, and read-only status, and hints at returned fields ('status and live stats'). Pagination/ordering details are the only meaningful gap.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds real value by stating the default behavior (archived excluded) that the schema-only text ('Also return archived campaigns') doesn't spell out. Only one parameter, fully explained.

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 ('List ... campaigns') plus a scoping qualifier ('classic Sales Process') and what the output includes (status and live stats). It implicitly separates itself from single-campaign siblings like get_campaign, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clarifies the default filter behavior (archived hidden unless include_archived=true), which is useful context for invocation. However there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_campaign, get_campaign_analytics, or other campaign-listing siblings.

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