get_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds value by describing the return envelope structure and fields, but does not contradict annotations. A 4 reflects adequate behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise paragraphs: the first covers purpose and parameters, the second explains use case and limitations. No redundancy, 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description still usefully summarizes the return envelope and data fields. It covers response format options and default account behavior. Complete for a read-only listing 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 descriptions already cover parameters with examples and defaults, so schema_description_coverage is high (0% context likely erroneous). The description only rephrases parameter types without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('Get campaigns') and clarifies scope ('explicit or configured default ad account'). It lists return fields (identifiers, names, statuses, objectives, budgets), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ads or get_insights.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('account-level campaign inventory') and when not to use ('Do not use it for performance metrics or for campaign creation, edits, or status changes'), implicitly steering to sibling tools like get_insights or other mutation tools.

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