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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the concrete set of status values returned and the fact that the single-campaign mode surfaces a message from the team. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the list-vs-detail distinction is front-loaded in the first clause of each sentence. Every element (verb, resource, statuses, parameter effect) 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 carries the burden of describing results, and it does outline both modes: a status-annotated campaign list, or one campaign's details plus any team message. The word "details" is left undefined and listing behavior (paging, counts) is unaddressed, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the order_id parameter is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description does add the behavioral effect of supplying order_id (switch to single-campaign detail mode including team message), but it adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own note.

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 ("Lists the person's Deep Thought campaigns") and enumerates the possible statuses, which lets an agent tell this apart from campaign_results or submit_campaign in practice. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The description gives a useful operating rule: call without arguments to list campaigns, supply order_id to get one campaign's details and team message. It does not address when to prefer campaign_results or request_change instead, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite notes, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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