list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It details the pagination algorithm (starting limit, continuation logic, progress reporting), explains that summarized data is returned to prevent size limits, clarifies that filters work with both pagination modes, and specifies that full details require 'get_campaign'. This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 (COMPLETE PAGINATION, PAGINATION ALGORITHM, FILTERS) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized for the complexity, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the pagination algorithm explanation is somewhat verbose). Overall, it's front-loaded with key information and most content 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?

Given the tool's complexity (pagination algorithms, multiple modes) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining behavior and usage. It covers the key aspects an agent needs: purpose, pagination approaches, algorithm details, filter compatibility, and relationship to 'get_campaign'. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation, but otherwise it's quite complete for a list operation with advanced features.

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 five parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about how parameters interact (e.g., 'limit=100+ or limit="all" triggers complete pagination', 'starting_after not needed when using complete pagination'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'List campaigns with optional filters and complete pagination support.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('campaigns'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_campaign' or 'get_campaign_analytics' beyond mentioning that 'get_campaign' provides full details. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 clear context on when to use complete pagination (with three specific approaches) and mentions that 'get_campaign' should be used for full details of specific campaigns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_analytics' or 'list_lead_lists', nor does it provide exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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