meta get campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and the statusFilter nuance about native effective_status vs configured status. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover much of that.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action, the resource, and the key output fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only list tool with a rich output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly noting pagination behavior or the relationship to sibling tools like meta_get_campaign_structure, but the annotations and schema cover the main operational needs.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by listing the returned fields, which helps an agent understand what the output will contain. The statusFilter description in the schema is already rich, so the description itself doesn't need to repeat it.

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 specific verb ('List'), a resource ('campaigns for a Meta ad account'), and the key returned fields (ID, name, status, objective, budget, bid strategy). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_get_adsets, meta_get_ads, and meta_get_campaign_structure.

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 implies the tool is for listing campaigns at the ad account level, and the statusFilter parameter description adds guidance on when to omit it ('Omit for post-creation verification and inspect both returned status fields'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over meta_get_campaign_structure or meta_get_insights.

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