get_campaign_eligible_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get eligible zones,' giving no information about the return format (e.g., zone IDs or full objects), whether it requires special permissions, or what happens if the campaign doesn't exist. The behavior is largely opaque.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but not fully self-contained. It does not explain what makes a zone 'eligible,' which is a core domain concept, nor does it mention any related resources or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Campaign ID,' so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The tool description's 'for a campaign' reinforces the id's purpose, but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('eligible zones') with an explicit scope ('for a campaign'). This clearly communicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_zones or get_campaign, even though no alternatives are mentioned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist), and no context about what constitutes an 'eligible zone.' The description merely states an action without explaining situational use.

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