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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses caching, null return values for unhidden fields, the interactive tickable card, widget-context storage of selection, and the required read behavior. This is far richer than a typical list-tool description.

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 focused and front-loaded: it opens with the core operation and scope, then covers cache limitations, the alternative tool, and the UI/context handling. Every sentence provides necessary information with little wasted wording.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return fields, null behavior, the fallback detail tool, and widget-context interaction very well. It is slightly incomplete because the parameters themselves remain semantically undocumented, though their property names and the descriptor enum provide reasonable inference.

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% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It indirectly references status and objective through the listed return fields, but limit, cursor, ad_account_id, status_filter semantics, and objective_filter format are left undefined. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a concrete operation and scope: 'List Meta campaigns in an ad account (fast cached list)', and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like adsap_google_list_campaigns and from the related detail call adsap_get_campaign.

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 explicitly states when to use this cached list versus adsap_get_campaign, specifically when live fields such as effective_status, buying_type, spend_cap, currency, and schedule are needed. It also gives direct operational guidance about reading the widget context before answering about ticked campaigns and instructs the agent not to claim it cannot see in-card ticks.

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