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 fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: only 'active' campaigns are returned, which is a filtering trait an agent could not derive from the annotations. It says nothing about default page size, result ordering, or what happens when no campaigns exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing for correct invocation: pagination behavior/defaults, whether the list is truncated at 50 (the limit maximum), and any ordering guarantee. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 33%: 'id' is documented, but 'page' and 'limit' have no textual descriptions (only numeric bounds). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap the way a low-coverage schema requires.

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 (List) and resource (campaigns) plus the scope qualifier 'active for the current account'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many identically-shaped siblings (list_affiliates, list_commissions, list_payouts, list_referrals), leaving the agent to infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool or the condition that would select one. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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