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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the operation lists all campaigns and includes their steps, indicating read-only behavior and output scope, which is adequate for a simple list tool. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but none are expected for this straightforward read.

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?

Single sentence, six words, front-loaded verb and object; every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete: it tells what is returned (campaigns with their steps) and the scope (all). The absence of a return schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of steps.

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 accepts zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no param details because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'campaigns' and clarifies scope with 'all' and content 'with their steps.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts or list_tasks by naming the exact resource and included steps.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided; the description implies usage simply by naming the list operation. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling list tools, so the agent must infer from context.

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