List Campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and explains the aggregate-volume rationale, but says nothing about pagination, result size, auth/permissions, or whether filtering is exact-match. The behavioral disclosure is partial rather than 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the rationale following. The 'headroom' sentences are slightly elaborate but earn their place by motivating the call; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the description covers purpose, filtering, and a usage heuristic. However, with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, an agent still lacks pagination behavior and the valid status vocabulary needed to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and there are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map both parameters conceptually ('filtered by account or status') and marks them optional, but gives no accepted status values, no ID format, and no indication that both filters can combine.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (List) and resource (campaigns) plus the filter dimensions (account, status), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like get_campaign or list_accounts, but the singular/plural distinction is inferable.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context ('Run this before creating anything') tied to a concrete decision (how much headroom a new campaign has), which routes the agent well relative to create_campaign. It does not name when-not to use it or point to an alternative for single-campaign lookups.

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