list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a meaningful guarantee beyond the schema: this tool returns ALL campaigns, including DRAFT and PAUSED campaigns with zero impressions, and supports filtering by group and status. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but for a read-only listing tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the differentiating contrast is sharp, and the filtering capabilities are stated concisely in the final sentence.

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 tool with three params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly scopes the result set and differentiates from the closest sibling. Minor omissions like pagination or default sorting are not critical for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of filtering by campaign group and status adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb (Lists) with a clear resource (campaigns for a LinkedIn Ad Account) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign_performance. It specifies exactly what this tool returns that the sibling does not, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with get_campaign_performance, stating that get_campaign_performance only returns campaigns with analytics data while this tool returns ALL campaigns including DRAFT/PAUSED with zero impressions. It also mentions supported filters, giving clear context for when to choose this tool.

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