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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a safe, closed-world read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds moderate value by stating the scope ('current company') and the data facets returned (budget, delivery, landing page, creative counts), but it does not go deeper into return-shape quirks or filter interplay. This is consistent with the read-only annotations; no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that fronts the action ('List') before the resource, scope, and return data, with zero filler or repetition of schema details. Every clause earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 paginated list tool with four optional, fully documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context. The only material gap is defining the 'Grow/ads' category and explicitly distinguishing it from droptrack_list_campaigns and droptrack_list_label_ad_campaigns, which is a differentiation gap rather than a structural one.

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 100%: all four parameters (limit, cursor, status, promotionType) carry their own descriptions, defaults, and bounds. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics—it summarizes return fields rather than input meaning—so the baseline 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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a well-defined resource ('Grow/ads campaigns for the current company') and previews key returned fields (budget, delivery, landing page, creative counts). The 'current company' scope and ads focus help differentiate it from siblings like droptrack_list_campaigns and droptrack_list_label_ad_campaigns, though those alternatives are never named. The unexplained 'Grow/ads' terminology keeps this from a 5.

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 'current company' scoping provides an implicit usage signal: this is the company-level ads campaign list, as opposed to label-level (droptrack_list_label_ad_campaigns) or general campaigns (droptrack_list_campaigns). However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative, so the agent must infer context from scope words alone.

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