get_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' strongly indicates a read-only operation, and the description mentions the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has any rate limits or pagination. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is highly concise.

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 has a simple interface (one optional parameter) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It mentions some output fields, which is good. However, it does not specify how the optional customer_id affects the query (e.g., whether omitting it uses the default customer) or any limitations (e.g., maximum results). The completeness is adequate for a basic list tool but lacks some important context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (customer_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic info. The description does not mention customer_id at all, failing to explain its purpose, format, or behavior (e.g., whether it defaults to the authenticated user). Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate but does not, resulting in poor parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('campaigns for a Google Ads customer') and the returned data ('status, budget, and core metrics'). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_campaign or add_negative_keywords, which operate on different resources or perform mutations.

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?

The description implies that the tool is for retrieving campaign data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this before modifying campaigns') or when not to use it. The context is clear because sibling tools are mutation-focused, but the description lacks explicit usage instructions.

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