list_renewal_campaign_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions '(cursor)', which suggests pagination, but lacks details on how the cursor works, whether read-only, response format, or side effects. The description does not disclose behavior beyond the minimal function.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is too sparse to be truly useful. It front-loads the main action but omits essential context about parameters and pagination, making it arguably under-specified rather than deliberately concise. It is not poorly structured, but it doesn't sell 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to explain the return value, pagination mechanics, and error handling. It only hints at a cursor and lists links, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool, especially for the 'after' and 'limit' parameters and the expected response structure.

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 covers 0% of parameters in the description, and the description itself does not explain campaign_id, after, or limit. It only says 'links de uma campanha' which vaguely hints at campaign_id but provides no detail. With no parameter explanations, the description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing 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 'Lista todos os links de uma campanha de renovação (cursor)' clearly states the action (list all links) and the resource (renewal campaign links), with a cursor hinting at pagination. The plural 'links' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_renewal_campaign_link, and the action differs from create_renewal_link, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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. The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, and while the name implies a listing operation, it doesn't explicitly tell the agent to use get_renewal_campaign_link for a single link or how to handle pagination. No usage context is provided.

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