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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, response format differences, or rate limits; it focuses on selection guidance rather than operational behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: when to use, what not to use it for, and a prerequisite routing rule. No wasted words, and the primary use case is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers selection criteria, exclusions, and an important prerequisite. The only meaningful gaps are undocumented pagination parameters and the meaning of the 'summary' format, which keep it from being fully complete.

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 clarifies the role of artistId, status, and campaignType, but leaves limit, cursor, and format unexplained. The format enum (json vs summary) is especially ambiguous without further context.

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 ('browse'), a concrete resource ('campaigns for one artist'), and optional filters ('by type or status'). Explicitly distinguishes itself from dynamoi_get_campaign, making the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, clear exclusions ('Do not use this for a single campaign deep dive'), names the alternative tool, and even gives a routing prerequisite when the user has no artists yet. This leaves little to inference.

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