list_campaigns

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions performance implications (with_details False when slow), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. The description adds some behavioral context but misses the opportunity to fully assure agents about safety.

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 front-loaded with a purpose statement and structured with example queries and an Args section. It is concise overall, though the example list could be slightly trimmed. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields (name, status, daily budget, type) and provides filtering and performance guidance. The sibling tools are distinct, so no cross-referencing is needed. The description is complete for its 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the status_filter values with concrete examples and defining the with_details boolean's effect and performance trade-off. This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with a clear Korean sentence stating the tool retrieves a full campaign list with specific fields (name, status, daily budget, type). The subsequent example queries reinforce the exact purpose. Although sibling tools are different, the description's clarity eliminates ambiguity.

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 example queries and explains when to use the status_filter and with_details parameters, including advice on turning off with_details for performance. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would improve guidance.

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