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

Adds context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the returned envelope shape, the BYO-token requirement, and the v2 token needing locationId. No contradiction with annotations, and the auth behavior is useful for correct invocation.

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 with no filler: purpose, return shape, use case, and auth requirement are all covered. The most decision-relevant information 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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it explains the return envelope, the reason to use it, and the authentication nuances. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's token/locationId mention mostly repeats the schema, adding no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already documented.

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 marketing/automation campaigns in the account.' It also clarifies the return shape (envelope with IDs, names, status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like leadconnector_list_contacts, leadconnector_list_opportunities, and leadconnector_list_pipelines.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for finding a campaign to attribute or enroll contacts.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the campaign-specific purpose is enough to guide selection among the sibling list tools.

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