list_campaigns

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

The rich annotation set (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already tells the agent this is a safe, repeatable, closed-world read. The description adds only the phrase "in this owner database" and discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or what happens when no campaigns exist, so it contributes almost no behavioral signal beyond the 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. It is not bloated, though it is thin enough that the trailing scope phrase "in this owner database" does most of the distinguishing work.

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 zero-parameter list tool this covers the minimum: what is listed and whose campaigns are listed. However, with no output schema the return shape is entirely undisclosed, "owner database" is left undefined, and there is no indication of ordering or pagination, leaving real gaps for an agent that needs to consume the results.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema forbids additional properties, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("campaigns") plus a scope qualifier ("in this owner database"), so the agent knows this is a read/enumeration of campaigns. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling create_campaign via the verb, but never names an alternative or clarifies what a campaign record contains.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_campaign or any filter/branch-scoped listing siblings. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point purely from the name.

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