campaigns_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: list is paginated and returns progress counters (totalLeads, contactedLeads, successfulCalls, missingCalls, onGoingCalls), which tells the agent what to expect from a read. It stops short of describing pagination limits or token/response size behavior.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the action breakdown and then the routing/exclusion note. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the return counters for list, and the pagination and mode behavior are covered by the schema. Remaining gap: agentId is required yet its role and whether it scopes the list vs. identifies the campaign owner is unstated, and page indexes are undocumented.

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 50%: mode and campaignId are documented in the schema, while action, agentId and page are bare. The description compensates for action by explaining the list/get semantics and ties campaignId to get, but says nothing about agentId (required for both actions) or page. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema support.

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 and resource ('Read outbound call campaigns of an agent') and enumerates both actions with what each does. It is immediately distinguishable from campaigns_write and whatsapp_campaigns_read, both of which are named or explicitly excluded.

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?

Explicitly routes writes to campaigns_write and declares a clear exclusion ('WhatsApp broadcast campaigns are not covered'), so the agent knows both when to use this tool and when to look elsewhere. The list/get split is also spelled out inline.

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