ym_get_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the response contains both campaigns[].id and campaigns[].business.id, which are needed downstream. It also documents the return envelope shape. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the page_token parameter, but the annotations plus the response format description provide solid transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and the critical 'call this first' guidance appear in the first two sentences. The parameter explanations and return format are concise and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the critical dependency context, parameter semantics, and return shape. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe pagination looping behavior, but the paging object in the return format and the page_token parameter make that inferable.

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 must compensate. It explains page_token as 'pageToken from a previous page (empty for the first page)' and limit as 'page size (<=100)', adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties. This is sufficient for an agent to use both parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the seller's shops (кампании)') and explicitly identifies the key fields returned (campaignId and businessId). It also distinguishes itself from other Yandex Market methods by noting it should be called first because nearly every other method needs these IDs.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first: nearly every other Yandex Market method needs a campaignId or businessId.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and why it precedes other calls, effectively routing around alternatives.

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