Список кампаний

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: monetary fields (DailyBudget.Amount, Funds Sum/Balance/SumAvailableForTransfer/Spend) are returned in account currency. This prevents misinterpretation of return values and does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the core function and filter options, the second adds the currency disclosure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the combination of a precise description, fully documented schema, and comprehensive annotations covers the agent's call-decision needs: purpose, filters, pagination (in the schema's autoPaginate/offset/limit), safety, and value semantics (currency). The only minor gap is that default return fields are not stated, though the fieldNames parameter makes this largely self-explanatory.

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% — all 8 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema, so the description's mention of filters by id/type/state/status adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Возвращает список кампаний' — returns a list of campaigns) and enumerates the filter dimensions (id, type, state, status), making the tool's job unambiguous. It is inherently distinguished from sibling listing tools like list_ad_groups, list_ads, and list_keywords by its resource.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. Usage context is only implied through the resource name and the optional filters; an agent must infer that this is the campaign-listing entry point among 40+ siblings.

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