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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context: it lists only active/enabled topics, spans all campaigns in the workspace, and returns the topic ID plus owning campaign. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope and return value, primary use case, and pointer to the sibling alternative. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, with no redundant filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to use it, and which sibling to choose for campaign-specific queries.

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%, and the only parameter (workspaceId) is already described as defaulting to the API key's workspace. The description confirms the workspace scope but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active LinkedIn search-watch topics across campaigns in a workspace'), and clarifies what is returned (topic ID and campaign). It explicitly differentiates itself from campaignstack_get_campaign_topics, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: check which topics are already being monitored before creating a new search watch. It also names the alternative for campaign-scoped queries (campaignstack_get_campaign_topics), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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