Список кампаний (ad_plans)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful note that monetary fields are in account currency, and clarifies the entity is the top-level campaign object. This adds beyond annotations but does not deep dive into pagination or default behavior, which are partially addressed by the schema.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the currency note adds value without bloat. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool has no required parameters, annotations covering safety, and a schema that documents all parameters, the description covers the core purpose and an important data format detail (currency). It does not explicitly state the response is an array, but that is implied by 'list'. The lack of an output schema makes this acceptable, and no critical missing context stands out.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description only reiterates filtering by id and status, matching the ids and statuses parameters. It does not add meaningful new parameter context beyond the schema, such as explaining autoPaginate or offset semantics; hence 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 clearly states the tool returns a list of ad_plan objects (the top-level campaign object in VK Ads) with optional filtering by id and status. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_ad_plan, update_ad_plan, and list_ad_groups by explicitly naming the entity and its role.

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 makes clear the tool is for listing ad_plans, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The purpose implies usage for read-only listing, and sibling naming reinforces it, but explicit guidance is absent.

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