direct_list_campaign_funds

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as 'READ' and notes that spend fields are available 'where available on get', suggesting conditional availability. However, it omits other behavioral details such as pagination, error handling, or permission requirements, and there are no annotations to supplement.

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 concise sentence with no redundant content, front-loading the read intent. While brief, it is not wasteful.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully convey the tool's behavior, input requirements, or return value. It leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The description does not mention either parameter. Schema coverage is 50% (project has a description, campaign_ids does not), and the tool description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate campaign_ids.

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 identifies the resource ('campaign funds / shared account spend fields') and uses the verb 'READ', making it clear this is a read operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like direct_list_campaigns which list campaigns, though the phrase 'where available on get' adds slight ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool over direct_list_campaigns or direct_get_campaign, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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