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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (name, status, prospect statistics) and clarifying the domain vocabulary ("prospects" are Contacts), which no structured field provides.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the resource and returned fields come first, then the terminology clarification and the pointer to the related tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, and the prospect/contact mapping prevents the agent from chasing a nonexistent concept. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

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%, so page, limit and status are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics (e.g., default status behavior or how status interacts with the returned statistics), so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List outreach campaigns in LinkedNav") and names the fields it surfaces (name, status, prospect statistics). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_campaign (single) or get_campaigns_summary, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 one concrete routing rule — use get_contacts(campaignId) to list a campaign's prospects — which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_campaign or get_campaigns_summary, so usage for the primary list/summary decision is only implied.

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