direct_campaigns

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds a little context about the returned data shape (id, name, type, status) and the mapping purpose, but doesn't explain behavior like archived inclusion, pagination, or response size. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 terse sentences: the first states the payload fields, the second states the purpose. Every word is useful and front-loaded, with no 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 simple read-only list with an output schema and two fairly self-explanatory parameters, the description covers the resource, the fields, and the purpose. The main gaps are that include_archived's effect on deciding 'which campaigns to pull' is left to inference and sibling differentiation is absent, but an agent still has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description contains no parameter-specific guidance. 'Кампании клиента' only implies the client_login parameter, while include_archived is not addressed at all, so the description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 identifies the resource ('client campaigns') and enumerates the useful fields (id, name, type, status), and states the mapping purpose. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists/retrieves' and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as direct_ads or direct_report, so it is not a 5.

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 a concrete use case: mapping CampaignId → campaign name and deciding which campaigns are worth including in a report. This is clear context for when to call the tool, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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