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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive listing operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail the annotations do not cover: active is the default, archived=true switches to archived sites, and the response includes totalPageCount and totalRowCount. It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limiting, but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences: purpose and default scope first, return structure second, endpoint detail third. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers default scope, archived behavior, and the main return fields; only minor details like page-size behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 the schema already documents page, archived, page_size, and allow_fundraisers. The description reinforces the archived default behavior but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List campaign sites') and clarifies that campaign sites are fundraising pages, plus active versus archived scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling funraise_get_campaign_site, which likely fetches a single site, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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: use this to list active or archived campaign sites, with active as the default. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over funraise_get_campaign_site or provide any explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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