list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses result completeness (includes zero-impression DRAFT/PAUSED campaigns), which is exactly the trait an agent needs to reason about output. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the defining contrast front-loaded after the core purpose. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only unaddressed item is return volume/pagination behavior, which matters somewhat for a list endpoint with no output schema, but it is a minor gap.

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% and each parameter has its own description, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes that campaign group and status filtering are supported, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists campaigns') scoped to a LinkedIn Ad Account, and explicitly contrasts with get_campaign_performance by noting it returns ALL campaigns including DRAFT/PAUSED with zero impressions. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_campaign_performance) and the condition that selects this tool instead (you need campaigns without analytics data). It stops short of stating an explicit when-not-to-use or a full routing rule, but the selection context is clear.

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