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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered by scheduled time and each entry carries title, body and state. It omits pagination behavior (the `view.next` cursor flow), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the resource, scope, ordering and returned fields, followed by a short endpoint reference. No filler, though the endpoint line is more developer reference than agent guidance.

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 description should carry the return contract; it names title/body/state but never mentions that results arrive as a view with a `view.next` cursor, which the schema's cursor parameter implies. Adequate for a simple list call, but the pagination loop is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters already have descriptive text including the `all` default for campaign_filter and the cursor sourcing rule. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List campaigns (bulk messages)') plus the scope ('in a campaign view'), the ordering, and the API endpoint. It clearly separates itself from textus_get_campaign (single item) and textus_list_campaign_filters, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. It doesn't say the `campaign_filter` slug typically comes from textus_list_campaign_filters, nor when to prefer textus_get_campaign for a single campaign. The endpoint line is reference info, not usage guidance.

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