List email campaigns

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing sort order (most recently changed first), the pagination contract, and a non-obvious data quirk (clicks hidden below 10 deliveries). It does not mention the default page size or maximum, which affect how many calls are needed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the safety signal, then the returned field inventory, then the pagination instructions. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields (id, name, kind, status, subject, schedules, recipients, report numbers, editUrl), which is exactly what the agent needs to consume results. Missing only the default limit and explicit sibling routing, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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% and the description compensates: it spells out the enumerations for kind (campaign/automation) and status (draft through failed), and explains that cursor comes from nextCursor. limit is left to the schema and its 1-50 bounds are not restated.

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 ('Email campaigns and automation emails' listed most recently changed first) so the agent knows this is a paginated list endpoint. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as postfjord_list_automations / postfjord_list_email_automations, which overlap with the 'automation emails' scope it claims.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Read only' signals a safe lookup and 'Pass nextCursor back as cursor for more' explains the pagination loop. There is no guidance on when to call this versus postfjord_get_campaign or the automation-specific list tools for a narrower view.

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