List a campaign's simulations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: required scopes (campaigns:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', and the underlying HTTP operation. The 'Does not require idempotency' line is slightly redundant against idempotentHint=true but not contradictory.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact metadata lines. Mostly efficient, though the 'Does not require idempotency' line adds little and the block reads as a flat list rather than prioritized prose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a scoped, read-only list operation the description covers auth, sensitivity, workspace override, and the endpoint, leaving little an agent needs 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 description coverage is 60% (workspaceId, workspaceSlug, maxPages documented; id and pagination query object are bare). The description only restates the workspace override behavior already implied by the schema descriptions, adding no syntax or formatting detail to compensate for the gap.

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 persisted campaign simulation runs.' An agent can distinguish it from the create/get siblings by the 'list' verb, but the description never names those alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only prescriptive guidance is 'Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment.' There is no when-to-use-this-vs-get/create guidance, only implied read-only listing context.

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