List Campaigns

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

The description adds behaviors beyond annotations: it mentions pagination via limit (default 20, max 100) and offset, and describes the return structure. Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld; the description enriches with operational details. No contradictions.

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 concise with 4 sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists filters, then pagination, then output format, then usage link. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given all structured fields (annotations, schema, no output schema), the description covers essential behavioral details: filters, pagination, output structure, and downstream tool references. It is complete for a list endpoint with good annotations.

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?

The description clarifies each parameter's purpose (platform, status, query, pagination) and adds allowable values for platform and status (different from schema enums: schema has 'google' and 'meta' vs description says 'google_ads'|'meta_ads', and schema has 'completed' and 'removed' while description says 'ended' and 'archived'). This mismatch might cause confusion but overall adds meaning. Schema coverage is 60%, so description partially compensates.

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 it provides a 'unified listing of campaigns across Google Ads and Meta Ads', specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'campaigns'. It distinguishes from siblings like campaign_create or campaign_update which are for different operations.

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 says 'Use the returned id with campaign_update, campaign_pause_resume, or ab_test_analyze', guiding on when to use this tool and providing alternatives. It also details optional filters, which helps the agent decide when to call this tool.

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