Reddit campaigns

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the distinction between configured_status and effective_status, example effective_status values, currency convention, and Reddit's budget-placement rule. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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: purpose first, then status semantics, then currency and budget rules. Every sentence carries non-obvious information and there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The read-only annotations and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description, and the description covers the non-obvious domain behavior well. However, it leaves the meaning and behavior of include_archived and the empty-default ad_account_id implicit, which is a small but real gap for an agent invoking the tool without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not explain ad_account_id or include_archived at all. The mention of is_campaign_budget_optimization refers to a returned field rather than clarifying either input parameter. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for them.

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 and resource: 'List Reddit campaigns with status, objective, budget mode and bids.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reddit_ad_groups and get_reddit_ads by naming the exact resource and the fields returned. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 listing intent is implicit from the name and first sentence, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_reddit_ads, get_reddit_ad_groups, or run_reddit_report. There are no exclusions or routing hints, so the agent must infer usage context.

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