List Campaigns

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: "Read-only". It also lists the returned fields, which is useful given there is an output schema anyway. However, it says nothing about scope (are all campaigns for the customer returned?), pagination, or result size limits for accounts with many campaigns.

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 short sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and the safety trait immediately after. Nothing is padded, though "to build plans" is vague enough that it barely earns its words.

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 simple (one parameter, output schema present), so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it omits the customer-scoping semantics of the only parameter and any hint about result volume, which are the things an agent would most need before calling it.

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% for the single required parameter, customer_id, and the description never mentions it. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone that results are scoped to one customer account. This is the clearest gap in the definition.

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?

"List campaigns with id, status and budget" gives a specific verb and resource plus the fields returned, which distinguishes it cleanly from every sibling (all of which are write operations). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the read/write split is obvious from the text.

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?

"to build plans" implies a use context, and "Read-only" signals when this tool is appropriate versus the mutation siblings. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to the status/budget setters, and no stated prerequisite for the required customer scope.

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