list_meta_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 discloses the plan requirement ('Starter plan or higher'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (despite a 'limit' parameter), error conditions, or what happens if no campaigns exist—leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and returned fields, and another providing usage context and prerequisites. It's front-loaded with core functionality, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, usage, plan requirement) but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned campaigns), pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or error handling. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'status') fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how filtering interacts with the listing or default behaviors beyond 'limit'.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all campaigns in the Meta ad account') with specific attributes returned (ID, name, status, objective, daily budget). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_meta_campaign_stats' by focusing on listing rather than detailed statistics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use campaign IDs to get stats, adjust budgets, or pause/enable') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires Starter plan or higher'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'list_tiktok_campaigns' for TikTok campaigns.

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