List campaigns

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: the non-obvious status default that silently hides archived campaigns, the max_results cap, and the meaning of summary_status. The one weak phrase is "plus none where supported," which is opaque about which other filters actually apply.

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 verb and resource, then dense filter semantics in a few short sentences; nothing is padding. The fragment "plus none where supported" is the one clause that costs more confusion than it saves.

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-shape explanation is rightly omitted, and the status-default caveat is the key behavioral fact. But with zero required parameters and an undocumented ad_account_id defaulting to null, an agent has no stated way to know which ad account the listing is scoped to, which is a material gap for a list tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden; it explains ids (up to 250), statuses (defaults and widening values), and max_results (item cap). It leaves ad_group_ids, campaign_ids, and ad_account_id entirely undocumented, and worse, never clarifies how `ids` differs from `campaign_ids` on a campaign listing tool — an agent could easily pick the wrong one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List campaigns in an ad account") that cleanly separates it from the create/update/archive_campaigns siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent read tools such as list_ads or bulk_export, which also return campaign-adjacent data.

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?

Gives operational guidance for the status filter (default ACTIVE+PAUSED, pass ['ARCHIVED'] or ['ALL'] to widen, IDs match in any status), which is genuinely useful for choosing arguments. It stops short of saying when to pick this tool over siblings like list_ad_groups, bulk_export, or list_metrics, and offers no exclusions.

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