List Campaign Creators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a downstream workflow prerequisite (check_bulk_email_readiness before bulk send); it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or total counts, which matter for a list endpoint capped at 2000.

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 short sentences with the account of what the tool does front-loaded. The second sentence is a bit tangential to this tool's own operation, but it is short and actionable rather than filler.

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 10-parameter, unfiltered-in-description list tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It leaves filter semantics, pagination defaults, and result shape entirely undisclosed.

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?

10 parameters with only 10% schema description coverage: only campaign_id is documented (and that in the schema, not the description). The description never mentions the rich filtering surface — search, country, platform, has_video, source_type, outreach_stage, workflow_filter — nor limit/offset semantics, so the agent must infer all of it from bare schema types and enums.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'List creators saved on a campaign roster.' The phrase 'saved on a campaign roster' implicitly distinguishes this from the global search_creators sibling, though it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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 roster framing implies when the tool applies, and the second sentence chains it to a downstream bulk-email workflow via check_bulk_email_readiness. But it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never contrasts with search_creators, get_campaign, or list_campaign_creator_performance.

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