List Campaigns (Picker)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by stating the fields returned ('id, name, group_id, is_archived') and performance characteristic ('cheaper'), which are beyond annotation scope. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: purpose+fields, comparison to sibling, and follow-up action. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only filtered list tool with well-described parameters and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, fields returned, performance, and next steps. No gaps.

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%, with all parameters having clear descriptions (q, limit, archived, group_id). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description explicitly states the verb ('list'), resource ('campaigns'), and specificity ('slim per-row campaign list for selection UIs'). It distinguishes from sibling `list_campaigns` by highlighting it's cheaper for large orgs, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use ('for selection UIs', 'Cheaper than list_campaigns for orgs with thousands of campaigns') and what to do after ('Use get_campaign(id) after a selection to fetch full details'), giving explicit usage guidance.

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