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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the ordering ('newest first') and search matching behavior (case-insensitive on name/subject), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or response format, leaving some gaps for a list operation.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides actionable search tactics. The second sentence is somewhat long but crammed with useful guidance; no filler or repetition exists.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and search usage well. It omits explicit return value details and full pagination behavior, but for a relatively simple list tool with full schema coverage, it is mostly adequate.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds practical meaning to the `search` parameter by explaining when and how to use it (vague descriptions, distinctive words, broadening). This exceeds the schema's basic substring match definition.

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 clearly states 'List email campaigns, newest first,' providing a specific verb and resource, and the ordering detail distinguishes it from other list tools. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does without needing to inspect the 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?

It explicitly instructs to use the `search` parameter for vaguely described past campaigns, offering examples ('the invite one') and keyword strategies. While it doesn't mention alternative tools, the guidance gives clear when-to-use context for the search feature within this tool.

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