list_flash_price_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API endpoint (GET /v1/flash_price_campaigns) and the return structure (dict with total_found, returned, items containing specific fields). However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, or any filtering capabilities beyond the max_results parameter. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, API call, return structure). It is concise yet informative, using bullet points and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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 a simple input schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure and a forward reference to another tool. It is mostly complete but could mention pagination or sorting behavior to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (max_results) already described in the schema as '最多回傳筆數'. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond this. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no extra parameter context is provided.

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 lists flash price campaigns, with specific purpose of browsing all flash sales and obtaining campaign IDs for further detail. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_flash_price_campaign and get_flash_price_campaign_detail by explicitly mentioning the latter for full details.

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 provides a '用途' section explaining when to use the tool: to browse all flash sales and understand campaign details. It also gives an explicit alternative: after obtaining campaign_id, call get_flash_price_campaign_detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as for retrieving a single campaign directly.

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