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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description omits crucial details such as whether the tool is read-only, performance implications (e.g., pagination for large datasets), or any side effects. The agent cannot anticipate the response format or potential errors.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids verbosity but could be slightly expanded with minimal behavioral notes without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool returns, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or potential limits. For a list tool in a suite with many siblings, more contextual completeness (e.g., 'returns all campaigns, use with caution if many campaigns exist') would be beneficial.

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 has no parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by stating that the result includes steps, which is not apparent from the empty schema. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates by clarifying the output scope.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('campaigns'), and specifies that steps are included. It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., list_contacts, list_providers) or modify campaigns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this to get an overview before modifying' or 'for filtered lists, use search tools'. This limits its usefulness for an agent deciding between tools.

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