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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are scoped to the brand owning the API key, responses include stats, and a Pro plan is required — none of which appear in the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence covering resource, scope, and return shape, followed by a short plan requirement. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the parenthetical scope clause is slightly dense.

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, 'with stats' usefully signals what comes back, and the plan prerequisite prevents a failed call. For a three-optional-parameter list tool this is nearly sufficient; only explicit sibling routing 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 coverage is 100%, so page, sort, and limit are fully documented with defaults and the max-100 cap. The description adds no pagination or sort semantics of its own, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but nothing extra is contributed.

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 (List) and resource (affiliate campaigns) plus the exact scope: the LinkJolt account tied to the API key. The singular sibling get_campaign is implicitly distinguished by 'List', though the description never names it explicitly.

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 prerequisite 'Requires Pro plan or higher' is a useful gating condition, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over get_campaign for a single record or other list_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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