List In-App Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful presentation directive ('Don't read ids or timestamps back to the user unless they ask'), but discloses nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentences, no padding, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the filtering clause. The second sentence is a distinct output rule rather than filler, so almost every word earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, full param coverage and clear annotations, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. A brief note on pagination shape or default ordering would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema documents after/before cursors, limit, search and the status enum in detail. The description only echoes the search and status filters, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 in-app message campaigns') and defines the resource domain ('messages shown inside the organization's app or website'), which implicitly separates it from the email/SMS/push siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 filtering conditions ('optionally by name or status') suggest when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no mention of the get-in-app-campaign or create/update siblings that share the resource. Usage is only implied.

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