get_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds behavior the annotations do not: results come back 'one page at a time' and enumerate the returned fields, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining whether pagination metadata (total count, next page) is returned, leaving a minor gap.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability and return fields come first, the sibling disambiguation second. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and noting the one-page-at-a-time behavior. It doesn't state whether the response includes total counts or a next-page indicator, which an agent paginating results would want.

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 page, per_page and status are already fully documented including defaults and allowed status values. The description only restates that status filtering is optional, adding essentially no semantics beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('List campaigns') and enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, status, sent/total progress, target list IDs), which tells the agent exactly what it gets. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not ('get_campaign for one campaign's full details'), so the two are easily separated.

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?

Gives the selection rule against the obvious alternative: use get_campaign when you need one campaign's full details and body, otherwise use this tool. The optional status filter is framed as optional ('Optionally filter by status'), matching the schema's 'Omit for all' guidance.

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