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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by specifying exactly what information is shown: automation name, schedule, enabled status, and last run outcome. This is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the output fields. Everything included 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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, read-only, safe, and idempotent. The description covers the output fields despite the missing output schema. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but for a straightforward list operation the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does tie the single parameter to the campaign by saying 'for a campaign', but it does not explain the format or origin of campaignId beyond the schema's minLength constraint. This is adequate but leaves a gap for an agent unfamiliar with the platform.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('scheduled automations for a campaign'), and it names the key output fields. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like campaignstack_get_automation_jobs or campaignstack_list_workflows.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to see a campaign's scheduled automations and their status. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping to a campaign and the read-only listing purpose provide enough contextual guidance for most agents.

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