list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering, rate limits), but the annotation mitigates the gap, resulting in an adequate score.

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, efficient line with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose with minimal words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits important context like pagination behavior or default ordering, which would be helpful for a list tool, leaving some 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% (both parameters documented), so the description provides no additional semantic value beyond what the input schema already includes. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '캠페인 목록 (GET /campaigns)' clearly indicates the tool lists campaigns, with the verb 'list' and resource 'campaigns'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_campaign' (single) and 'list_ad_accounts' by specifying both action and HTTP endpoint.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign' or 'get_campaign_performance'. The description only states what it does, missing when-not-to-use or preferred scenarios.

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