List campaigns.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination cost, result volume, ordering defaults, or how filtering parameters interact. With annotations carrying the whole burden, the description contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

The text is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than concision; there is no front-loaded useful information. A one-phrase restatement of the title earns no efficiency credit.

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 an 8-parameter, unfiltered list endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain filtering, sorting, and pagination behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent dependent entirely on thin per-parameter schema strings.

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%, so the baseline is 3 under the rubric. That said, several parameters (Sort, Search, OrderBy, SharedAsTemplate) are documented only as "Exact native query parameter," and the description does not compensate with syntax or accepted values for Sort/OrderBy. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus the many other list_* siblings, no prerequisites, no scoping advice. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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