List campaigns

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the required OAuth scope and the specific status values returned, going beyond what annotations convey.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core listing purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the scope requirement is placed as a clear secondary line.

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 simple paginated read-only list tool, the description plus fully documented schema and safety annotations cover the essential invocation details. It could mention the response shape more explicitly since there is no output schema, but the schema's cursor descriptions and the mention of lead_count give sufficient context.

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, including pagination semantics for limit, starting_after, and ending_before, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('outbound calling campaigns'), and the key returned attributes (status and lead_count), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from get_campaign and other campaign-mutating siblings by focusing on the listing of campaigns with their statuses.

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?

The description implies usage for browsing campaigns and checking their statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_campaign or provide exclusions. The scope requirement is useful operational context but does not guide an agent on choosing among the sibling tools.

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