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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists 'all' phases and returns them 'sorted by order.' However, it does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or what happens if the campaignId is invalid, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences each earn their place: the action, the sorting behavior, the semantic context, and the prerequisite lookup. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple, read-only list operation with one required parameter, the description is mostly complete: it defines scope, sorting, and how to find a valid input. Since there is no output schema, it could have given a bit more detail on the returned phase objects, but the phrase 'Phases represent roadmap milestones with objectives and a phase type' already hints at the expected content.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the single campaignId parameter to 'for a campaign' and explicitly directs the agent to campaignstack_list_campaigns for valid IDs, which gives the parameter practical meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all phases for a campaign,' and adds the sorting behavior. It also clarifies the domain concept of phases as roadmap milestones, which distinguishes this from simply listing other campaign-related entities.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need all phases for a campaign. It also provides a concrete prerequisite by instructing the agent to use campaignstack_list_campaigns to find valid campaign IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternative phase-related tools like campaignstack_get_phase, but the context is clear enough.

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