campaigns_get_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these flags—it does not explain output format, pagination, potential filters, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's lack of additional info yields a low score.

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 extremely concise—two words—which is front-loaded and lacks superfluous text. However, it is under-specified to the point of being uninformative. It is not 'appropriately sized' because crucial information about filters and behavior is omitted, making the brevity a drawback rather than a strength.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fails to convey even basic expectations. It does not mention what the response contains, how status filters results, or what happens when locationId is omitted. The agent cannot predict the tool's behavior from this description, so it is incomplete.

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 coverage is 50%: only locationId has a description, while status has none. The description 'Get Campaigns' adds no elaboration on either parameter, failing to explain what status values mean or how locationId interacts. It does not compensate for the incomplete schema, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('Campaigns'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not specify the scope or type of campaigns (e.g., all campaigns for a location, campaigns from a specific platform), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_get_campaign or ad_manager_google_get_campaign_by_id. Thus, it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any filtering conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. There is no indication of exclusions or preferred usage context, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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