amazon ads get sb campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: an eligibility gate, that ARCHIVED is included by default, and the crucial caveat that results are configuration and not performance. It stops short of noting error or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by precondition, pagination, and the config-vs-performance caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply prerequisites and behavioral caveats, which it does. The minor gap is what an agent should do when the Brands eligibility check fails.

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 accountId, states, nextToken, maxResults and campaignIds are all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the all-states default and the continuation-token flow, adding little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already supplies; baseline 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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Read), resource (Sponsored Brands campaigns), and scope (one page), which immediately separates it from the SD and generic campaign siblings. The size of the result set is bounded up front, so the agent knows this is a paginated list rather than a full dump.

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?

"Requires Brands eligibility in this profile" is a genuine precondition, and "follow nextToken" tells the agent how to continue rather than re-call blindly. However, it never states when to prefer this over the seemingly overlapping amazon_ads_get_campaigns sibling, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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