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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe reading, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it specifies the return envelope structure ({ data:[...], pagination }) and identifies the underlying HTTP GET endpoint. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate response shape and pagination.

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 tight sentences: a clear purpose statement, an API reference, and a succinct return shape. Every sentence carries value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return envelope and pagination. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-only list operation. The presence of the params object is acknowledged via the schema, and the overall behavior is clear.

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 parameters limit, offset, and params are already well-documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond this, but the reference to pagination indirectly relates to limit/offset. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 fundraising campaigns', a specific verb+resource that unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaign_donations and list_campaign_profiles. The additional 'Raisely API: GET /campaigns' reinforces the exact operation.

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 tool's purpose implies usage when a user needs a list of campaigns, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_campaign_donations. It provides a clear context (fundraising campaigns) but does not articulate exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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