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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes it as a safe read, and the description adds genuine value by enumerating the fields the records contain plus the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/campaigns). It says nothing about pagination behavior or typical result volume, but the return-content disclosure is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences plus an endpoint reference; the resource and fields are front-loaded and nothing is padded. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a full statement, a minor structural weakness.

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 field enumeration carries the return-shape burden and largely does so. Pagination is covered by the schema, leaving little an agent would still need to know before calling it.

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 both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema (ranges, defaults, next_item usage). The description adds no parameter-level information 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?

The description names the resource (campaigns) and enumerates the fields returned (start/end dates, financial goal, code, active flag), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like lgl_list_appeals and lgl_list_funds. The verb is only implied by the title rather than stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It hints at downstream use ('Use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches') but gives no guidance on when to pick this over sibling list tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated as an explicit condition.

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