Состав кабинета

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral nuance: it reveals that report-only rows represent campaigns that are running but not listed via API and cannot be managed, which is crucial for an agent to understand the tool's output semantics.

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 moderately long but each paragraph serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and caveat about report-only rows. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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's no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (merged table with source labels) and the key nuance of report-only rows. It also justifies why this tool exists relative to a sibling, providing enough context for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions (DateFrom/DateTo with formats and defaults), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full cabinet composition by merging campaigns from the list and report, with source labels per row. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling campaigns.get, making the purpose and differentiation 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?

It explicitly instructs to call this tool instead of campaigns.get when needing 'what is currently running', and explains why campaigns.get is inadequate (doesn't return Master Campaigns). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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