get_qianchuan_campaign_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination but does not disclose if only active campaigns are returned, whether the list is sorted, or any rate limits. It does not confirm read-only behavior (though 'get' implies it). The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic listing 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 concise: a short title, a one-sentence description, and a bulleted list of arguments. No wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to parse. It could be slightly more compact by integrating the args into a single sentence, but it is effective.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic inputs but omits output format, sorting, filtering beyond pagination, and error conditions. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully comprehensive, especially for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: advertiser_id is the account ID, page has default 1, page_size has default 20 and max 100. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for the parameters that are documented (all three), though it could mention that advertiser_id is required.

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 tool lists Qianchuan ecommerce ad campaigns under an advertiser account. The verb 'List' and resource 'Qianchuan campaigns' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_campaigns (which may be for non-Qianchuan campaigns) or get_campaign_detail (single campaign), but the name itself specifies Qianchuan, making it distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_campaigns or get_campaign_detail. It does not mention prerequisites or limitations. The only implicit context is the tool's name, which signals it is for Qianchuan campaigns, but explicit usage direction is missing.

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