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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the backing endpoint and, importantly, the return envelope shape { data:[...], pagination }, which is real value since there is no output schema. It says nothing about rate limits, default paging behavior, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema carries.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the endpoint and return shape. Every sentence 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's disclosure of the { data, pagination } envelope is exactly the missing piece an agent needs. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all three parameters, the definition is nearly complete, only lacking routing guidance versus siblings.

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% – limit, offset, and the free-form params object are all documented in the schema itself, including the verbatim pass-through behavior and example filters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List fundraising campaigns') and pairs it with the underlying API operation (GET /campaigns), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the closest sibling raisely_get_campaign (single campaign), leaving the list-vs-get distinction to be inferred from the verb.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over raisely_get_campaign, raisely_request, or the more specific list tools like raisely_list_campaign_donations. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'; there are no conditions or exclusions stated.

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