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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all' without detailing return format, pagination, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly confirmed, and there is no mention of auth requirements or side effects.

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 a single five-word sentence: 'List all scheduled campaign runs'. Every word adds meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly scannable.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the basic action and scope. However, it lacks important context such as the return value structure, whether historical runs are included, and any usage context relative to siblings. The completeness is sufficient for a trivial list tool but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description incurs no burden to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The 'all' suggests no filtering, which aligns with the absence of parameters.

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 'List all scheduled campaign runs' clearly states the action (List) and resource (scheduled campaign runs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_campaigns, which likely lists campaigns rather than scheduled runs. However, the term 'scheduled campaign runs' could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'run'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like list_campaigns or list_tasks, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The 'all' implies a broad scope, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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