reach_listCampaignsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema: results are paginated, the default type is 'campaign' unless overridden, and a fully sent campaign is labeled 'publish' rather than 'sent'. It also notes that each campaign carries its headline engagement rates. It doesn't mention permissions, error behavior, or return format, but for a read-only list operation the key behaviors are covered.

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 three well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains status filtering with the important publish quirk, and the third clarifies type default and overrides. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 (6 params, 3 enums, pagination) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: it mentions pagination, the status mapping, and the default type behavior. It does not describe the response structure, but the schema fully documents all parameters. This is a complete enough description for a filtered, paginated list operation.

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 100%, so this is a baseline 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already documents for 'status' and 'type' (e.g., the publish status quirk and the default type). The only additional param-relevant information ('Each campaign carries its headline engagement rates') describes the response, not parameter semantics. No new meaning is added for 'page', 'per_page', or 'sort_direction'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Get a paginated list of the campaigns in a profile.' It clearly indicates the scope (profile-scoped) and the fact that results are paginated. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reach_getCampaignDetailsV1 and reach_listAutomationsV1 by explaining that the default returns regular campaigns and that type can be set to get automation emails or double opt-in confirmations.

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 provides explicit filtering guidance: 'Filter by status to find drafts, scheduled, sending or sent campaigns' and clarifies the status quirk with 'a fully sent campaign has the status publish.' It also explains the default type behavior and how to override it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-campaign details, the context makes the intended use clear.

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