ghl_get_email_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List', implying read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default status filtering, rate limits, or what the 'schedule endpoint' entails. The agent lacks insight into the tool's operational 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it omits useful detail. It earns its place by stating the verb, resource, and endpoint.

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?

The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters or the implications of 'via the schedule endpoint', leaving gaps in how the agent should invoke the tool effectively.

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 adds no meaning for limit, offset, or status. The parameter names and enum values are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without context on how these parameters affect results.

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 action (list) and resource (email marketing campaigns) with a specific scope ('in the location') and an endpoint detail ('via the schedule endpoint'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ghl_get_email_campaign (singular get) and ghl_get_campaigns (generic campaigns).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of when to choose it over ghl_get_email_campaign, ghl_get_campaigns, or other campaign-related tools.

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