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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the phrase 'a read: it only queries' largely restates that. The genuinely additive piece is disclosing that the underlying call is 'POST /project/{project_id}/campaigns', which preempts an agent mistaking the POST endpoint for a write, plus pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and returned field set, then pagination, then the endpoint note. Every sentence carries information, though '(a read: it only queries)' is mildly redundant given readOnlyHint=true.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining pagination and type filtering — enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of sort order or total-count behavior, and no routing to the narrower sibling list tool.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies; the description clears it slightly by grouping skip and limit as a pagination pair and flagging campaign_type as the type selector. It does not add bounds or defaults beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the intended combination of the two paging params.

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 ('List campaigns') and enumerates the returned fields (name, type, status, audience size, submitted count, template, creation time), which makes the tool's output scope concrete. It also distinguishes filtering modes (API, broadcasts, or both). It stops short of naming the overlapping sibling aisensy_list_api_campaigns, so sibling differentiation is only implicit via campaign_type.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: campaign_type ALL/API/BROADCAST hints at when this tool covers the narrower list_api_campaigns case, and 'pages with skip + limit' implies list-scan scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the alternative aisensy_get_campaign_analytics for per-campaign detail.

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