google_ads_get_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. 'List' conveys a read-only operation and the listed output fields hint at what is returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, the default statusFilter semantics, authentication needs, or whether the result is limited in any way. There is no contradiction, but meaningful behavioral context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence: it names the operation, resource, and key output fields without filler or repetition. Every phrase 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?

For a simple list tool the description is adequate, but there is no output schema to document return shape and the description omits details like pagination, default status behavior, and how it differs from the many sibling reporting tools. Required/optional parameters are covered by the input schema, so the main gaps are behavioral and output-format related.

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 only 33% (only customerId has a description), and the description does not explain limit or statusFilter beyond their names. The phrase 'with status' vaguely relates to the statusFilter, but it mainly describes output fields rather than input parameters, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('campaigns') and scope ('for a Google Ads account'), and names the key output fields (status, budget, channel type, bidding strategy). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like google_ads_get_adgroups or google_ads_get_budgets without needing to open their schemas.

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 retrieving campaign-level data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions/conditions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so an agent must infer usage from the title and sibling names.

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