Список кампаний

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact beyond them: monetary fields (DailyBudget.Amount, Funds Sum/Balance/SumAvailableForTransfer/Spend) are returned in the account currency, which prevents misreading values. It does not mention pagination shape or volume limits.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: capability and filters first, then the currency caveat that materially affects interpretation of results. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 nine-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and a key return-value semantic (account currency). The remaining gap is the pagination contract (offset/limit vs autoPaginate walking LimitedBy), which is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters, including enums and the fieldNames restriction. The description only echoes four filter names and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Возвращает список кампаний") and enumerates the filter dimensions (id, тип, состояние, статус), so the agent can tell this is a filtered read of campaigns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_statistics or campaign_action, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "необязательными" signals that all filters are optional and that omitting them lists everything. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over list_ad_groups/get_statistics, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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