Список рекламных кампаний

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently reinforces this by stating that no modifications are possible through this API. It adds extra transparency by disclosing the API point balance mechanism, the AND-combination of filters, and the precise boundaries of allowable actions (only via change_group_budget and change_group_price). No contradictions with annotations.

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 informative but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose and pagination, then lists the returned fields, then explains filtering semantics, and finally clarifies limitations. Each sentence carries useful information. The length is justified given the number of parameters and the need to explain the generic filter's behavior. No redundancy or 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?

For a complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details the return structure (total, items, page, limit, hasNextPage, apiPointBalance), enumerates the campaign fields, explains filter combination rules, and sets clear boundaries on what cannot be done. The presence of the openWorldHint annotation is supported by the description of pagination but not fully explored; still, the core information an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is all present.

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 each parameter is individually documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the universal 'filter' parameter's pass-through behavior (additional keys are mixed in as-is) and the precedence rule between named fields and the generic filter. It also clarifies the AND logic across filter lists, which is not in the schema. This is valuable semantic context that goes beyond field descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Перечисляет') and object ('рекламные кампании аккаунта') and specifies pagination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like campaign_stats and list_groups by focusing on campaign listing and explicitly stating what it cannot do. The return structure and key fields are enumerated, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clearly defines the tool's scope (read-only listing) and explicitly lists what cannot be done (create/update/pause/resume/archive/delete campaigns, modify targeting). It does not compare against sibling read tools such as campaign_stats, but the purpose is evident from the name and first sentence. The mention of alternative modification tools (change_group_budget, change_group_price) helps set expectations but does not directly guide when to use this list tool versus others.

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