List your managed service campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest first and the list is empty when the user has no managed service, which prevents the agent from misreading an empty array as an error.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the ordering and empty-state facts. Nothing here repeats the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the ordering, and the empty-result case. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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% and both limit and offset carry their own descriptions with defaults and bounds, so the description needn't restate them. It adds no extra meaning such as how paging interacts with the newest-first ordering, leaving this at the baseline.

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 (lists) and resource (managed service campaigns) and scopes it as the campaigns Growwer's team runs on the user's behalf, which cleanly separates it from the singular growwer_get_managed_service_campaign. It does not explicitly name the sibling for detail views, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Use this when the user asks about the campaigns Growwer's team runs for them" gives an explicit trigger, and "Empty without a managed service" gives a precondition that tells the agent when not to expect results. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for drilling into a single campaign.

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