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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the default field set, that sequence and schedule settings are omitted, and the pagination defaults (50 default, 100 max).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and scope lead, then the return-shape caveat, then filtering and pagination. Every sentence carries information, though the packed parentheticals require a careful read.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the compact field set and what is omitted. Pagination and filtering are covered; only minor detail (ordering, whether contact metrics are per-send) is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter including the compact field list and pagination limits. The description's status parenthetical ('1 = active, 2 = inactive') refers to the returned field value rather than the string enum on the parameter, which adds slight ambiguity instead of clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (campaigns) scoped to a team, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_campaign for the full field set. An agent can tell it apart from list_conversations and the mutation siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives filtering guidance (status "active"/"inactive") and names get_campaign / the fields param as the escape hatch when the compact set is insufficient. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond that, but the routing to the sibling is clear.

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