List campaign pages

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: names and titles have contact details redacted, so an agent will not treat the output as raw PII. It also states the type/status scoping. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but with annotations carrying safety this is solid added context.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with filters and return fields following in logical order. Every clause carries information; it is slightly long, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, title, subtype, status, locale, dates) and disclosing the redaction behavior. The required type and optional status, and the result cap, are covered via schema. Only ordering/pagination semantics beyond the single-response note are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, including enum labels and the max_results cap, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only human-readable glosses of the type values (donation, petition, event, data capture) and the optional-status behavior, which is baseline value when the schema is fully documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list the account's campaign pages, scoped to one type and optionally one status. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_page or list_marketing_automations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"optionally only those with one status" implies when the status filter is appropriate, and the type requirement signals the mandatory scoping. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_page guidance or note that this is the bulk-retrieval path for a single page lookup. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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