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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content — that it spans every campaign plus upcoming releases lacking a campaign and in-progress planning — but says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination limits.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that lead with the primary scope before the secondary items. Dense but every clause carries information; there is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (campaign window, ahead/running/over status, post counts by state, plus campaigns with no release and plans in flight). Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the only parameter, nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single artist parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the label-connection requirement). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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 (list) and resource (Promo campaigns) and elaborates on exactly what each entry contains — window, status, and per-post tallies. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names sibling tools like get_campaign to distinguish single-campaign lookup from this list view.

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 description explains what is listed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_campaign, promo_this_week, or promo_results. An agent must infer the intended scenario from content alone.

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