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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result is a workspace-scoped, bounded page that includes each campaign's latest run and counters.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource while packing in scope, return content, and pagination constraint. Every phrase 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?

For a simple read-only list with rich annotations but no output schema, the description does mention return content and pagination. However, it leaves project_id and the limit/offset mechanics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given the low schema description coverage.

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 only 25% (only organization_id is described in the schema). The description does not explain what limit, offset, or project_id do, nor does it clarify pagination semantics beyond the vague phrase 'bounded page', so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns') and adds scope ('in the workspace') plus return content ('latest run and counters', 'bounded page'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_campaign or other list_* tools, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It implies use for enumerating campaigns in a workspace but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_campaign for a single campaign. Pagination parameters exist but the description offers no guidance on when or how to page.

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