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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the campaign kind taxonomy (release vs between_releases), the fact that it also includes upcoming releases with no campaign and campaigns currently being planned. No return format or pagination details, but the domain behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, which is good, but the second sentence is a dense run-on packing domain taxonomy and lifecycle rules that could be tighter. Every clause carries information, but the phrasing is rambling rather than crisp.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so concretely (window, status states, per-post counts, plus uncampaigned releases and in-progress campaigns). The only gap is the artist scoping, which the schema handles, so it is largely complete for a list tool.

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 the artist parameter and its label-vs-artist-connection condition are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 resource ('Every Promo campaign in this account') and enumerates the fields it returns (window, status, post counts), so the scope is clear. It communicates the 'all campaigns' aggregation distinct from a single-campaign read, though it never names get_campaign or another sibling directly.

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?

It implies when the call is useful by describing what it returns and clarifies the campaign lifecycle ('none starts by itself: start_campaign with between_releases plans the next one'), which points to the start_campaign sibling. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings like promo_this_week, promo_results, or get_campaign.

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