get_marketing_integrated_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but does not explain what an integrated campaign is, how it differs from marketing events, whether pagination is handled, or any access constraints. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with such a vague resource concept.

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loading the key action and resource. There is no redundant information, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 is a paginated fetch operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'integrated campaigns' are and what the response contains. It offers only a bare minimum purpose, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably invoke the tool or handle 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters ('after' and 'first'), so the schema already documents their purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Fetch marketing integrated campaigns' uses a specific verb and resource, making it clear that the tool retrieves integrated campaigns. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_marketing_events or get_marketing_event, so while the purpose is clear, differentiation from alternatives is missing.

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 compared to other marketing-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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