List Push Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral instruction about not surfacing ids/timestamps unless requested. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, so the added context is modest.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the presentation guideline. Every clause 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 fully-annotated, read-only list tool with complete schema coverage, this is close to sufficient; the pagination mechanics are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is that, with no output schema, the description never describes what a returned campaign contains or how results are ordered, leaving the agent to infer the return shape.

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%, with fully documented cursors, limit range, search semantics, and a status enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden and a 3 baseline applies. The description echoes 'name or status' but adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., case sensitivity, combinability of search+status) beyond the schema.

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 push notification campaigns') and names the two filter dimensions (name, status), which is enough to distinguish it from the parallel list-email-campaigns/list-sms-campaigns siblings by channel. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get-push-campaign (single retrieval) or list-push-notifications, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get-push-campaign for a single campaign, and no note on when filtering is worthwhile. The only additional sentence is about output presentation, not tool selection. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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