list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by emphasizing the authorization restriction and the single-customer scope.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb, resource, and key scope constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, especially with strong annotations and self-explanatory parameter names. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it could still use more detail about return shape, optional filters, or guidance on selecting the right sibling tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters beyond the implicit customer scope. It provides no meaning or allowed values for status, campaign_ids, channel_type, or campaign_name_contains, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('campaigns'), and a clear scope ('one explicitly allow-listed Google Ads customer'). This easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or get_campaign_details without needing to inspect schemas.

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 allow-listed customer constraint gives clear context about when the tool applies, and 'list' implies a broad listing use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_campaign_details, get_campaign_cost, or get_campaign_performance, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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