list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'list' and explicitly mentions pagination behavior. However, it omits details like default limit, ordering, and whether any account-level permissions are required. While this is a low-risk read operation, the description could add a bit more context.

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, zero redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. It effectively conveys the primary function, filtering capabilities, and pagination without wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: scope (ad account), filtering options, and pagination. It omits the default return format or field selection behavior, but given the schema's 'fields' parameter and the simplicity of listing, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of all 6 parameters with descriptions and enums (status, objective). The description only repeats that filtering by status and objective is supported, adding no new semantic meaning. The pagination mention aligns with cursor parameters but doesn't explain them further, so the schema is the primary source of parameter understanding.

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 lists campaigns in the ad account, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_campaign (single campaign) and list_ads (different resource) by mentioning the ad account scope and filter/pagination capabilities.

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 provides clear context: use this to list campaigns with optional status/objective filters and paginated results. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or alternatives like get_campaign, but the context is unambiguous for a listing operation.

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