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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that goals and dates are included in the response, and the API endpoint hints at the backing operation, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotation covers safety.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint reference is marginal value but cheap. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no guidance on filtering semantics or result shape. The description should at least note that results are paginated and how to combine filters, or what a campaign record contains. For a list tool with this much optional surface, it is under-described.

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 parameters (ids, skip, take, search, has_goal, is_active, last_modified) are already documented with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 (fundraising campaigns) with the returned fields (goals and dates). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_appeals and list_funds by the campaign resource. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 alternatives named, no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the tool for enumerating campaigns. Nothing routes the agent to list_appeals or list_funds when the resource is ambiguous.

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