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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description reveals the output includes access levels, an inline id display, structuredContent.idMap, and a rule to hide raw ids from users. These are specific behavioral details that help the agent know what to expect and how to handle results.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage context, output format details, and user-facing instruction—all relevant and succinct.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the access-level information, the id/campaignName relationship, and how to refer to campaigns in prose. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter detail is required.

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 clearly states the tool lists Argo campaigns accessible by the current grant token, including access level. The verb 'List' and resource 'campaigns' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaign by describing its scope and intended first-use.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when the user has not provided a campaign ID,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also provides display conventions and directs use of the returned id, which further clarifies how it fits into a workflow.

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