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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that campaign codes track signups but pay no reward, which affects how an agent interprets the results. It says nothing about ordering, volume of codes returned, or link format.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed immediately by the one non-obvious semantic fact about campaign codes. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description needs only to say what comes back and what it means. 'With their links' plus the signup/no-reward note covers that adequately; a hint about return volume or ordering is the only minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension starts at 4; there is no parameter to mis-describe. The description correctly implies the call is scoped to the caller's own seat rather than accepting any 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns this seat's campaign invite codes with their links'), which lets an agent separate it from create_campaign_code and update_campaign_code. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 usage context is only implied: it is clearly the read side of campaign-code management, and the 'count signups and pay no reward' note hints at when campaign codes are relevant versus other invite codes. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus creating or updating a code, and no stated prerequisites.

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