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 useful context: it requires Authorization Bearer JWT, is scoped to caller-owned campaigns, and includes board spots. It does not describe pagination, error behavior, or response shape, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core scope ('Every Rokha Ads campaign the caller owns'), then adds the key inclusions and the auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description covers scope, auth, and the fields returned. It does not specify response format or pagination, and there is no output schema, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the result contents instead, which matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly identifies the resource: every Rokha Ads campaign the caller owns, including board spots, and lists the returned fields. The verb is implicit ('every campaign' implies a list/retrieve operation), and the plural scope distinguishes it from the singular ads_order sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_order or ads_campaign_update. It implies use when the caller needs their own campaigns, but it does not state exclusions or point to a sibling for different needs.

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