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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the returned fields and the underlying endpoint; it says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or total counts, which the schema's skip/take parameters imply is relevant.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded with no filler. The 'Bloomerang: GET /campaigns' fragment is cheap and mildly useful for endpoint mapping, though it borders on redundant with the title.

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 should carry more of the return-value burden; it names goals and dates but omits pagination shape and record fields. Given fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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 all seven filters (ids, skip, take, search, has_goal, is_active, last_modified) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering semantics or format detail beyond that, 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 and resource ('List fundraising campaigns') plus the fields returned (goals and dates), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as list_appeals or list_funds, but the resource name alone is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., search_constituents-style search or get-by-id tools). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema filters.

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