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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds transparency about what the tool returns (top-level metrics, not full content), scopes it to the active tenant, and signals that further detail requires other tools. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return shape, filtering, and follow-up routing. It is well structured overall, though the filter sentence loses some credit because it contains inaccurate enum values.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, the active-tenant scope, and how to proceed to related tools. It falls short of 5 mainly because the misleading status and channel examples could lead to incorrect calls, and the description does not fully reconcile its filter values with the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's filter guidance is inaccurate: it lists status values DRAFT/SCHEDULED/SENT/FAILE D while the schema enum is EXECUTED/DRAFT/PAUSED/STOPPED/SCHEDULED, and lists channel EMAIL/SMS while the schema includes WHATSAPP. This can actively mislead an agent into sending invalid parameter values, outweighing the minor interpretive value it adds.

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 opens with a specific purpose: discovering existing campaigns before reporting or scheduling, which clearly names the resource and intended action. It also states the returned fields (status, channel, send date, top-level metrics) and distinguishes itself from the deeper follow-up tools nevent_get_campaign and nevent_get_campaign_insights.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call: before performance reporting or scheduling new sends. It also provides concrete routing guidance, saying to use the returned campaign id to call nevent_get_campaign or nevent_get_campaign_insights for deeper details.

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