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

There are no annotations, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It notes the fixed count of 125 and the filtering capability, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication, or the shape of the returned data, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 sentence that immediately states the primary action and scope, followed by a brief note on filters. No unnecessary detail or repetition exists.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify return values and pagination; it does not explicitly do so. The count of 125 gives a sense of scale, but the tool's pagination parameters remain unexplained in the description, leaving the context incomplete for a simple list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'platform', 'type', and 'effort' to platformId, type, and maxEffort, adding meaning to those filters. However, it does not describe pagination parameters (page, perPage) or clarify the scale of 'effort,' providing incomplete semantic coverage.

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 marketing actions, specifies the count (125) and the platform (Social Perks), and mentions filterability. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like listCampaigns and listSubmissions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or recommended contexts. The purpose is inferred solely from the verb 'list' and the tool name, offering no comparative direction.

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