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 useful behavioral context by stating the tool returns campaign IDs, names, statuses, objectives, and budgets, and by clarifying the data are 'synced from a provider'. It does not mention pagination or absence of filtering, but given the simple read-only nature and annotation coverage, this is a solid disclosure.

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 compact and efficient. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the call rationale, the third summarizes the output fields, and the fourth connects to downstream tools. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required enum parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, the parameter, the return fields, and the follow-up tools, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%: the provider parameter is fully documented with an enum of meta, google, and tiktok. The description repeats the provider values in prose without adding syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond the schema, 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 begins with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List all paid campaigns synced from a provider', explicitly enumerating meta, google, and tiktok. It distinguishes this from other campaign-list tools by emphasizing 'paid campaigns synced from a provider' and even names the downstream tools that consume its campaignId output, so an agent can disambiguate it clearly.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Call this to discover campaignId values — you need a campaignId to call insights or ad group tools.' It then tells the agent exactly what to do with the returned values by naming nevent_get_paid_campaign_insights and nevent_list_paid_ad_groups. This goes beyond mere context and gives actionable routing.

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