List Sponsored Brands 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 behavioral context by mentioning pagination via nextToken and the specific data returned (budgets, states, dates). No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and concise. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description outlines key return fields and pagination. While it omits campaign IDs or names, it is sufficient for a listing tool with well-named parameters and high schema coverage. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'Paginate with nextToken' is already documented. CampaignIds parameter lacks description in both schema and description, but overall no additional value added.

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 Sponsored Brands campaigns with specific fields (budgets, states, dates) and version (v4). It distinguishes from sibling tools by name and by pointing to create_report for performance metrics, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit guidance to use create_report for performance metrics, indicating when not to use this tool. While it doesn't directly contrast with sibling list tools, the context of 'Sponsored Brands' and the tool name effectively narrows its scope.

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