search_campaigns

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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the search and ordering syntax (e.g., no mention of read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or side effects). The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety or mutability details.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, follow-up context, parameter details, and return type. It is slightly verbose in the ordering explanation but earns its place. The front-loading is good.

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 presence of an output schema, the description's return type ('List of collections, aka threats') is sufficient. It covers the tool's operation, parameters, and relationship to other tools thoroughly. No major gaps are apparent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning. It explains the 'query' parameter as required, 'limit' with default 10, and 'order_by' with valid values ('relevance', 'creation_date') and syntax (+/- for ascending/descending). This goes well beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search threat campaigns in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It also explains that campaigns are modeled as collections and directs users to subsequent tools like get_collection_report. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_threats or search_threat_actors.

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 clear usage context: it tells users to use this tool to search for threat campaigns (collections) and then mentions get_collection_report as a follow-up. It also explains ordering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or specify alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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