get_campaign_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optionally aggregated performance', which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the response format is, or any access requirements. For a list operation, more transparency is expected.

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 the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about campaign groups without being verbose. It's appropriately concise and well-structured, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 list operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or which performance metrics are included when includePerformance is true. It also doesn't state whether the response contains all campaign groups or is limited. These gaps could affect agent expectations, though the core functionality is clear.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that performance is optional, which is already stated in the includePerformance parameter description. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 lists all campaign groups for an account, with a specific verb and resource. It also provides context on what campaign groups are (organize campaigns, control budget), which helps distinguish it from other list tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_campaigns or list_lead_forms, so it's clear but not perfectly distinctive.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions campaign groups help organize campaigns, but doesn't state when to choose this over list_campaigns or performance-specific tools. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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