search_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the internal scoring system (score≥3 threshold), the blacklist and active deduplication filtering, and the behavior of the include_ambiguous flag (adding likely_mod hints). This goes well beyond a simple 'search' and gives the agent confidence about what to expect.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose ('search campaign maps'), then explains the filtering behavior and the key parameter option, all in a compact, well-structured manner.

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?

An output schema is present, so return value details are not required in the description. The description covers the primary purpose, the default filtering behavior, and the include_ambiguous flag, which is enough context for a search tool. It does not mention the generic parameters (keyword, sort, limit, days) but those are self-explanatory from the schema, leaving the description complete for the unique behavior.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description text adds context about the scoring threshold and the include_ambiguous behavior, but it does not introduce new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already captures. Each parameter's meaning is fully documented in 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for campaign maps in the workshop, with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('campaign maps'). It also introduces unique filtering behavior (phase2 multi-factor rules, blacklist, active dedup) that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_new_campaigns.

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 explains the default behavior (only returns high-confidence score≥3 results) and explicitly tells the user when to set include_ambiguous=True to see ambiguous, mod-like results. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for interpretation.

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