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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description needn't re-state that. What it does add is the sort order ('newest first') and that status and counts accompany each row, which is genuine behavioral context not implied by the annotations. It stops short of saying anything about pagination, result limits, or whether archived campaigns are excluded by default.

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 clause-dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and packing scope, ordering, and payload into the remainder. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema that defines the returned shape, the description covers what matters: what is listed, in what order, and roughly what comes back. The only omission is an explicit note that archived campaigns are hidden unless requested.

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 100% and the single includeArchived parameter carries its own description with a default and enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning beyond it — the word 'your' hints at account scoping but says nothing about archived inclusion.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 mention of when to prefer campaigns_get, and no explanation of when archived campaigns matter. The one real selection decision an agent faces here — whether to set includeArchived — is left entirely to the schema.

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