list_campaigns

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose behaviors such as default status filtering (ENABLED and PAUSED), whether it is read-only, pagination, or any effects. This leaves the agent to infer important operational details.

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 with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is so brief that it lacks informative substance. Still, it does not waste 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?

Given the context signals (3 params, no annotations, many siblings), the description is too sparse. It does not mention the default status behavior, how results are returned, or when to prefer this over related tools. The output schema exists but the description still fails to frame the tool's role.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including the default for 'status'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 'List' with a clear resource 'campaigns' and a context 'for an account'. This is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_account_summary, which may also operate on campaigns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like get_campaign_performance and compare_periods exist, but the description offers no exclusions or contextual hints about which tool to choose.

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