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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-safe operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the operation is paginated and supports optional filters and sorting, plus the REST endpoint for reference. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds pagination/filter/sort behavior and the REST endpoint. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (pagination, filters, sort) and clarifies what campaigns are. It does not explain return values, but that is less critical given the tool type. Minor gap: no explicit mention of default count or max, but these are in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described. The description mentions 'type/status/audience filters and sort' which maps to the schema but adds no new detail beyond it. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't elevate beyond that.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'the account's campaigns', with clarification that campaigns are 'email sends'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign (single campaign) and list_reports (reports), and mentions optional filters and sorting, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is for listing campaigns with pagination and optional type/status/audience filters and sorting. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context is sufficient given the sibling tools and the description's clarity.

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