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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the '[read]' prefix in the description is largely redundant. The description adds real context by naming the lifecycle statuses campaigns can be in, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering despite having page/per_page parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the optional filters trailing. The '[read]' tag is wasted space given the annotations, but otherwise there is 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?

With no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description should say more about what comes back and how paging behaves. It covers filter semantics adequately for a read-only list tool but leaves the agent guessing about result shape, pagination defaults, and the branch/seliee_website naming gap.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it explains that account and branch can each be specified by id or uuid (mapping to the ads_account_id/uuid and seliee_website_id/uuid pairs) and names provider and status filters. However, it omits page/per_page entirely and never clarifies that 'branch' corresponds to seliee_website_*.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ad campaigns') with a scoping qualifier ('created from the panel') and enumerated status values (DRAFT / PAUSED / ACTIVE ...). An agent can distinguish it from create_ads_campaign or ads_insights_campaigns, though the description never names an alternative 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?

States that filtering is optional and lists the filter dimensions (account, branch, provider, status), which implies when this tool is useful. It gives no when-not guidance and does not redirect to siblings such as search_ads_transparency or list_ads_accounts, so selection still requires inference.

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