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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: location_id filters each page only after BrightLocal returns it, so a page can come back short while next_cursor keeps going, and total counts all campaigns. That post-filter pagination quirk is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot infer from structured fields and would otherwise misread as end-of-results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then row contents, then the filtering caveat in a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy in listing status values twice when the schema enum already enumerates them.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it names every field per row, defines total versus page semantics, and warns about short pages during pagination. An agent could call this correctly without further context.

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 is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the paging interaction of cursor with location_id post-filtering and clarifies that 'Saved' means not yet paid or submitted. Status enum values are already in the schema, so enumerating them again adds little.

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 Citation Builder campaigns'), then enumerates the exact row shape (location, status, payment date, listings ordered, aggregators, alerts), which makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_citation_tracker_report or list_locations.

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?

Usage is implied through the status filter and the note that 'Saved campaigns are not paid or submitted yet', which hints at when Saved rows matter. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the citation tracker report siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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