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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further and discloses non-obvious data semantics: configured_status vs effective_status, possible effective status values, that money is in account currency, and that budgets sit on ad groups unless is_campaign_budget_optimization is true. Pagination and rate-limit behavior are not mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered detail about return contents and status semantics. Nearly every sentence earns its place; a dense run of caveats but no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still usefully frames what comes back (currency, campaigns, blocked-campaign insights). Complete enough for a read tool, with only the usage routing left implicit.

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%, so both ad_account_id and include_archived are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about these parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List Reddit campaigns') and enumerates the key fields returned (status, objective, budget mode, bids), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_reddit_ad_groups, get_reddit_ads, and get_reddit_performance.

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 implies when the tool is useful (inspecting campaign configuration), but never states when to use it versus the adjacent Reddit read tools (get_reddit_performance, run_reddit_report) or when-not. Usage must be inferred from the resource it lists.

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