List Campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the listing scope and optional status filter, but omits pagination behavior (pageSize is not mentioned) and does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('List') and includes the key optional behavior. Every 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 the simple tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and status filter. However, it omits mention of pagination via pageSize and what fields are returned, leaving some context gaps. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification for the status parameter by explaining it filters by Active/Expired, making it more friendly than the schema's 'InsertionOrderStatus filter'. It does not add anything for pageSize, but the added status clarity justifies a 4.

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 'List the programs/campaigns this partner has joined' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaign (singular) and list_catalogs. The optional status filter adds further specificity.

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 provides context ('this partner has joined') which implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_campaign or state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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