x ads list campaigns

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by disclosing that native X fields and pagination are preserved and that monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency. This helps the agent interpret response data without contradicting the annotations.

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 short, front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail. The transition between 'account' and 'Native X fields' is slightly awkward and could mislead on first read, but overall 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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, this description is sufficient for a listing operation. It communicates the core scope and important response quirks. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but the schema and names provide enough context for correct invocation.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema carries the heavy lifting for parameter semantics. The description's note about pagination and _micro monetary fields is more about response interpretation than input parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action and target: 'List campaigns for an account'. This clearly identifies a batch read operation for campaign data and distinguishes it from singular get tools and other resource listers. It does not explicitly contrast with x_ads_get_campaign, which would make sibling differentiation even stronger.

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 intended context: use this when you need campaigns for an account. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over x_ads_get_campaign or when filters such as campaign_ids or with_deleted should be used. Usage is conveyed mostly by the verb and resource rather than by stated exclusions or alternatives.

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