List Campaign Criteria

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read nature, and the description usefully enumerates what categories of criteria are returned. However, it adds no other behavioral context such as permission requirements, pagination, or scope limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, this 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It leads with the action and resource and then lists the relevant criteria categories, every element earning 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?

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It could mention scope or ordering, but nothing essential is missing for a simple read-only list operation.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the campaign context, 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 (Lists) and resource (a campaign's targeting criteria) and enumerates the criteria categories covered: locations, proximity radii, ad schedules, devices, negative criteria. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_campaign_criterion (mutation) and unrelated list tools such as list_conversion_actions.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only listing verb and the resource, but the description never states when to use this instead of related tools (e.g., get_campaign_performance) or any exclusions. No prerequisites or context beyond the obvious are provided.

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