direct.list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the bare action. It omits whether the call is read-only, how pagination defaults behave, whether results are truncated, and what auth/Client-Login context is required for agency multi-project calls.

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 short sentence with zero padding and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though the efficiency comes from omission rather than precision.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this is far too thin. Nothing explains the default field set, pagination semantics, or the relationship between account_id and direct_client_login, all of which an agent must get right before calling.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema already documents pagination, field_names defaults, SelectionCriteria, and the campaign-type field-name overrides. The description adds nothing on top, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List campaigns') against a named system, which is enough to identify the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as direct.hf.find_campaigns or direct.list_adgroups, leaving the boundary between 'list' and 'find' to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus direct.hf.find_campaigns, direct.raw_call, or the other list_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a resolved account_id or Direct Client-Login. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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