get_smart_plus_campaigns_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It openly states that Smart+ campaigns are excluded from get_campaigns_tool, lists returned fields, and gives status filter examples. It does not discuss pagination behavior or side effects, but the get semantics and return-field disclosure provide meaningful transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the key differentiator from get_campaigns_tool, followed by returned fields and filter examples. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

The description provides enough to call the tool correctly for typical use, and an output schema exists to cover return details. It could be more complete by explaining pagination parameters and campaign_ids filtering, but those are reasonably inferable and not critical gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'status' with concrete filter examples ('ENABLE', 'DISABLE', 'DELETE') and implies advertiser_id's role)Skip. However, page, page_size, and campaign_ids are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 retrieves Smart+ (AI-optimised) campaigns for an advertiser, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_campaigns_tool by noting that Smart+ campaigns do not appear there, eliminating ambiguity.

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 gives a direct usage cue: use this when Smart+ campaigns are relevant, since they are absent from get_campaigns_tool. It explicitly names the sibling alternative and explains the blind spot this tool fills, so an agent can route correctly.

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