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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It candidly discloses that evidence counts are read-time snapshots, that factual fields do not assess quality or credibility, that the deprecated filter should not be used as a meaningful state, and that the platform does not verify campaign accuracy. Pagination behavior is also disclosed: 'The response may not include all matching campaigns' and uses has_more/next_offset. This is exemplary disclosure.

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 long, but every sentence adds value for an agent. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows through fields, filters, sorting, pagination, and disclaimers. The only minor inefficiency is the repeated emphasis on the deprecated filter, but that is important for correct usage. Overall it earns its length without being bloated.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains not just inputs but also response components (campaigns, total_matching, has_more, next_offset), the pagination algorithm, and critical caveats about verification and evidence counts. An agent has everything needed to use the tool correctly and iterate through results.

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 description coverage is only 7% (only evidence_layer_status has a description), yet the description explains every parameter in prose: filters, sorting, pagination, country format, category enum, and defaults. It adds critical semantic detail beyond the schema, such as 'country must be an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code' and 'limit defaults to 20 and is capped at 100.' This fully compensates for the sparse schema documentation.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Search public campaign records with filters, sorting, and pagination.' This specific phrasing immediately distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign, which would retrieve a single campaign by ID. The scope is well-defined and unambiguous.

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 description provides extensive usage context: all inputs are optional, filter fields are enumerated, sorting and pagination defaults are specified, and explicit guidance is given to continue calling with offset until has_more is false. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend get_campaign for single-campaign lookups, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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