list_campaigns

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes further by disclosing the pagination bounds (limit 1-100, with offset) and the set of valid campaign statuses. It stops short of explaining what 'local campaigns' scopes to or whether results are sorted/filterable by status.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the field/pagination details. The telegraphic status list and 'limit 1-100, with offset' are efficient, though the fragments read more like notes than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage the description should do more for a 4-parameter tool: it never defines 'local campaigns' versus membership, nor how status filtering interacts with pagination. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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%, so the description carries the param burden alone. It supplies the limit range and the four legal status values (draft, ready, paused, completed) — genuinely useful since the schema has no enum — but leaves 'offset' and 'account' semantics unexplained beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (this account's local campaigns) and adds a scoping qualifier '(without membership details)' that separates it from the heavier get_campaign family. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell it is the lightweight enumeration tool rather than the detail fetch.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_campaign, get_campaign_summary or list_leads, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the verb 'List'.

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