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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already establish that this is a safe, account-wide read, so the description's main added value is enumerating returned fields. It says nothing about default ordering, whether the full account is returned, or result-size behavior, so the incremental disclosure is modest.

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 with zero padding, purpose front-loaded and paging noted second. Slight redundancy in restating what the schema already explains about limit/offset keeps it off a 5.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits ordering, whether pagination terminates, and what next_offset means in practice. Given the annotations already cover safety, this is the minimum viable level rather than fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents defaults, bounds (max 500, min 0) and the next_offset handoff. The description only restates that limit/offset drive paging, adding no format or semantics beyond the structured fields, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

A specific verb and resource (list campaigns) plus the fields returned (name, subject, sender, recipient lists, delivery moments), which an agent can oppose to laposta_get_campaign. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

Only paging guidance is given ("Use limit/offset to page"), which is implied usage of the parameters rather than when to choose this tool over laposta_get_campaign or laposta_list_reports. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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