sf_campaigns_by_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]' and adds behavioral context by listing the specific metrics returned (lead/contact counts, budget, conversion data), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 description is concise with two main sentences and an initial instructions line that may be redundant. It front-loads the key information. Despite the slight redundancy, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return data (campaigns with lead/contact counts, budget, conversion data). For a simple 2-param tool with good annotations, this is fully complete.

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% with both parameters described. The description essentially repeats the status values (Planned, In Progress, Completed, Aborted) and does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. No details on the limit parameter are added. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Filters Campaign records by Status' and specifies the resource (campaigns) and the primary filter. It also mentions the returned data (lead/contact counts, budget, conversion data) and provides example queries. This distinguishes it from siblings like sf_search_campaigns and sf_campaign_performance.

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 description gives example use cases ('which campaigns are currently running?', 'show completed campaigns with their results') which guide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, missing some comparative guidance.

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