fcrm list campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: results are paginated and campaign statistics are opt-in via the `with` parameter, plus an auth capability requirement — though that requirement is left ambiguous ('depends on the action being performed').

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 core three sentences are tight and front-loaded, with the resource and pagination stated first. The trailing capability/policy block is boilerplate-heavy and its conditional phrasing is muddy, slightly diluting an otherwise efficient description.

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, 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, sorting, pagination and the optional stats payload. The only real gap is that with no output schema the description could sketch the returned campaign record shape, but everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, including defaults, ranges and the status enum. The description only restates the filter categories (status, search, labels, sort) at a higher level and adds no syntax, format or defaulting detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('Retrieve a paginated list of email campaigns') and enumerates the supported filter/sort capabilities, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby siblings fcrm_get_campaign or fcrm_campaign_stats, which would have earned a 5.

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 only implied: the description names filtering and sorting options, suggesting 'use this when you need a filtered campaign list', but never states when to prefer this over fcrm_get_campaign, fcrm_campaign_stats, or fcrm_list_sequences. The capability note ('which one applies depends on the action being performed') adds no routing guidance.

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