list_em_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates the safe, read-only nature via 'GET /emCampaigns', but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, sorting defaults, response shape, or authorization requirements.

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, direct sentence plus a useful endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 endpoint with a fully covered schema, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of response format or pagination leaves some practical ambiguity for an agent invoking this tool.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already explains origin, originId, and extraQuery. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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') and a specific resource ('email marketing campaigns'), and the endpoint 'GET /emCampaigns' confirms exactly what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_em_campaign, update_em_campaign, and list_em_events.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource: use this when you need to retrieve email marketing campaigns. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, when not to use it, or mention pagination/filtering as practical guidance.

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