List campaigns

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint), so the description's added value is the auth and data-handling context: required scopes campaigns:read / luca:read and "data sensitivity: redacted". That is real disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of describing rate limits or the shape of the paged result.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a short line on query fields, then operational metadata. Nothing is padded, though the scope/operation boilerplate is procedural rather than decision-useful.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema (so return values need no prose), the description covers purpose, auth scopes, workspace override, and query surface. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 75% and the three documented parameters (maxPages, workspaceId, workspaceSlug) already carry full descriptions, including the pagination/truncation contract. The description's "Query supports limit, cursor, and status" merely names the nested fields without explaining what status filters on or what cursor encodes, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List campaigns") and even names the underlying operation (GET /api/campaigns), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling campaign tools such as luca_campaigns_get or luca_campaigns_enrollments_list, which is the only thing keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the enumeration counterpart to the campaign getters. The one concrete usage note — "Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment" — is helpful context but concerns parameter behavior, not when to pick this tool over an alternative.

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