List Email Campaigns

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 fully covered. The description adds one non-obvious trait — suppressing ids/timestamps in the reply unless asked — which the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or result ordering, so it goes slightly beyond but not richly beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is an operational directive rather than description, but it earns its place as an agent-facing instruction and the whole definition is well within a reasonable length.

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, the description gives the agent a handling rule for the returned fields and names the filtering surface, while the schema fully documents pagination. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though a note on pagination default or result volume would round it out.

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%, covering after/before cursors, the 1-100 limit default, case-insensitive search, and the full status enum. The description only restates the name/status filters, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (email campaigns) with the filterable dimensions named, which cleanly separates it from get-email-campaign, create-email-campaign, and list-sms-campaigns. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource qualifier 'email campaigns' is unambiguous among the list-* family.

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?

Implies usage through 'optionally by name or status', telling the agent these are optional filters, but never states when to prefer this over get-email-campaign (single fetch) or list-sms-campaigns. The second sentence is a presentation rule rather than invocation guidance, so the when-to-use picture stays at the minimum viable level.

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