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 only the account scoping ('current account') and the fact that filtering spans both campaign-level and experiment-level status. It says nothing about result volume caps, default paging behavior beyond what the schema shows, or whether archived campaigns appear by default.

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 the resource scoping front-loaded and the capability list after. No filler, though the parenthetical '(Metadata-native)' consumes space without resolving the wizard-vs-native ambiguity.

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 8 optional params at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits the name and visibility filters entirely and never indicates what a campaign object looks like or whether the response is paginated metadata. For a list tool in a crowded sibling set it should say more about the returned collection.

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% and the schema itself carries rich semantics, including the UI-tab mirroring example for status/experiment_statuses. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('wizard (Metadata-native) campaigns') scoped to 'the current account', which separates it from get_campaign_by_wizard_id and the archive/unarchive siblings. It does not however differentiate itself from search_campaigns_by_names or search_campaigns_by_utm_value, and leaves 'wizard (Metadata-native)' undefined relative to the several 'native' siblings.

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 names the capabilities (pagination, sorting, experiment-status filtering) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_campaigns_by_names or search_campaigns_by_utm_value, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the selection rule from the tool names alone.

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