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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that it 'picks up from where the cursor left off', which explains stateful continuation. It doesn't mention potential side effects like sending messages, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No filler.

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 simple 1-param tool with clear annotations and no output schema, this description is sufficient. It explains the scope (paused paced list campaign) and the key behavioral nuance (cursor picking up). It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but not necessary for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage ('Campaign ID'). The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but none are needed given the schema coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resume' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a paused paced list campaign'. It distinguishes from generic campaign resumption by adding 'paced list campaign' and the cursor behavior, which differentiates it from sibling tools like neuron_resume_campaign.

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 clearly indicates this is for paused paced list campaigns, giving context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like neuron_resume_campaign, but the 'list campaign' qualifier provides sufficient differentiation. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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