list_account_phishing_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET request and explains parameter placement, which implies a safe read operation. It does not mention pagination defaults, response behavior, or any rate-limit/auth considerations, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then the endpoint, then the parameter placement, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

The description covers the endpoint and the main parameter groups, and an output schema exists to document the response. However, it does not name the required path parameter (`accountId`) explicitly, nor list any valid query filter/sort/include keys, and the `body` parameter is unmentioned. It is workable but not fully complete for a generic schema.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully maps route IDs to `path_params` and filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values to `query`, which compensates for the generic schema. The `body` parameter is left unaddressed, but for a GET operation that is a minor omission.

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 clearly states the operation: listing phishing campaigns for an account, and anchors it to the exact GET endpoint `/accounts/{accountId}/phishing-campaigns`. This differentiates it from the sibling `list_phishing_campaigns`, which is not account-scoped.

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 practical context: it is account-scoped and specifies where parameters belong. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `list_phishing_campaigns` or other list variants, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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