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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real context beyond the annotations: the 500 IP exclusions per campaign limit and the fact that the returned criterion_id is required for subsequent removal.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scoping, then cross-references, then the limit. The inline Turkish translation is expendable noise for most agents, but the definition otherwise earns its sentences.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: scoping behavior, sibling routing, return-field purpose and the platform limit. Nothing material is missing.

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 carry the load, and it does: campaign_id is explained as an optional scoping switch ('leave empty for the whole account') and customer_id is implied by 'on the account'. It also documents a returned field (criterion_id) that the schema cannot express.

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+resource ('Lists the campaign-level IP exclusions') and scopes it precisely to the account/campaign. An agent can distinguish it from sibling block_ip_addresses and unblock_ip_addresses without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass campaign_id to scope to one campaign or leave it empty for the whole account, and routes the agent to the right siblings: unblock_ip_addresses to remove, block_ip_addresses to add. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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