list_campaign_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: pagination defaults and max (skip, take), sort direction default (desc), user name resolution, contact ID requirement, and date filter semantics. This goes beyond a simple 'list' description and provides operational context.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args block. It covers all 8 parameters without unnecessary verbosity, and the most relevant operational details (filters, pagination) are front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 optional parameters, no annotations, output schema available), the description is complete: it clarifies the domain, parameter semantics, defaults, and limits. The output schema handles return structure, so no extra explanation is needed. The description provides all essential usage context.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains every parameter: user (display vs login name, auto-resolution), contact (internal ID, not a name, with hint to list_contacts), date_from/date_to format, sort field examples, and pagination defaults. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 'List campaign records' with an explicit definition in parentheses: 'outbound campaign activity — calls made, results.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_calls or list_crm_records.

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 usage through its purpose and parameter filters (e.g., user, contact, date range), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It lacks direct comparisons like 'use instead of list_calls'.

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