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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: cursor-based pagination and the archived-campaign hiding behavior unless includeArchived is true. It does not cover pagination details or response shape, but that is not critical given the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences, each adding value: purpose, pagination, archive visibility, and downstream usage. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: workspace scoping, pagination, archive filtering, and how to use the returned campaignId values. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact response structure would be helpful, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 schema documents workspaceId and includeArchived, and the description adds meaning for cursor-based pagination and the archived filter behavior. With 50% schema coverage, this is a reasonable level of additional guidance, though limit and cursor mechanics could be slightly more explicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List campaigns in a workspace.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like campaignstack_get_campaign or campaignstack_list_ad_campaigns by naming the exact object type and scope.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool and explains how to chain the results with campaignstack_get_campaign, campaignstack_list_workflows, or campaignstack_list_lead_lists. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the simple listing purpose is unambiguous.

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