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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only. The description adds 'this server does NOT send campaigns' and pagination details, which provide some extra context but are not substantially beyond what annotations already imply. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple list tool with full parameter documentation and readOnlyHint, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (pagination, filtering, read-only). It lacks an explicit statement about the return format, but that is a minor gap given no output 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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by status' which aligns with the status param, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The page and limit parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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 'List campaigns' with verb and resource, and adds detail on optional filtering and pagination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the tool name makes it obvious.

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 mentions the read-only nature and that the server does not send campaigns, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are all different resources, so guidance is sufficient.

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