Retrieve Multiple Campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination defaults, the 100-item cap, result ordering, or whether multiple filters combine as AND or OR. For a 26-parameter search endpoint this is thin disclosure.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is compact. But the second half ('through query parameters') is pure boilerplate that occupies space without informing, leaving the definition under-specified rather than tight.

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 26-parameter, zero-annotation, paginated search tool, the description omits everything an agent would need beyond the schema: how filters compose, pagination behavior, and result shape expectations. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the filtering and paging semantics remain unaddressed.

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 every filter (name, tags, status, chainId, minimumApr, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a verb and resource ('search for campaigns'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, 'by providing specific criteria through query parameters' is filler that adds no discriminating detail, and it does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like campaigns-get, campaigns-count, or opportunities-search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus campaigns-get (single campaign), campaigns-count, or the opportunities-* family. With 13 sibling tools and both list-and-fetch variants present, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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