list_campaign_feedback

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is understood as a safe read operation. The description adds return format details but does not mention additional behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. Still, it complements annotations well.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, parameter explanation, and return format in a few clear sentences. No unnecessary information.

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 simplicity and the existence of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what, when, how to get campaign IDs, and return fields. It misses the account parameter and potential pagination, but overall sufficient for a list operation.

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?

The description explains the campaign_id parameter and how to obtain it, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention the optional account parameter, leaving it undocumented. With schema description coverage at 0%, it partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 'List team collaboration feedback comments on a campaign' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_feedback for single comment 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?

Provides context for use: 'Use to review internal notes...' and directs to get_campaign_feedback for single details and get_campaign_details for IDs. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but implies it through differentiation.

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