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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default 30-day window and enumerates the metrics returned, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether all campaigns are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the returned fields, and the default window with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 correctly compensates by naming the metrics returned (contacts, requests out, accepted, replied, meetings booked), which an agent cannot get from the schema. Minor gaps remain around result size/pagination, but the essentials for calling the tool are present.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented, including the enum for status and the 1-365 bounds for days. The description's "default the last 30 days" merely restates the schema's default for days, adding no new meaning, 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 and resource ("List your campaigns") and adds the fields returned (status, daily limit, results), so an agent knows this is a bulk enumeration rather than a single-record fetch. It never names the sibling it must be chosen over (e.g. get_campaign), so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of a date window defaulting to the last 30 days signals "use this to see recent performance," but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like get_campaign for a single campaign or get_account_summary for aggregates.

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