List campaigns

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`. The description adds significant behavioral details: cursor pagination with `first_id`, `last_id`, and `has_more`, plus monetary micros conversion explanation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 moderate complexity, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (pagination, monetary units) adequately. It could mention the return format is a list of campaign objects, but that is implied by context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but provides general context about pagination and micros that aids understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List campaigns in the ad account' and explains that campaigns are top-level objects defining objective, budget, and country targeting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_campaign` (single campaign) and `list_ad_groups` (different resource).

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 context that campaigns are top-level, implying use for listing all campaigns. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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