kadam_adv_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'list[s] with pagination', disclosing its behavior of returning multiple results and supporting pagination. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the output format (paginated list). No contradictions detected.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List advertiser campaigns with pagination') and then lists filter options. Every word is useful, no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It covers filtering and pagination but does not explain default values (e.g., page=1, perPage=25), sorting behavior, or the structure of the response. For a complex tool, it is somewhat incomplete, though the annotations help by confirming read-only nature.

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 mentions filtering by 'folder, status, type, date range, or search query', which explains the purpose of folderId, status, type, dateFrom/dateTo, and searchQuery. However, it omits page, perPage, sortField, and sortOrder, leaving these parameters unexplained. The description adds partial value but fails to cover all parameters.

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 purpose: listing advertiser campaigns with pagination and filtering. It specifies a verb ('List') and a resource ('advertiser campaigns'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list_audiences' or 'list_creatives', though the resource name makes it distinct.

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 mentions filtering options (folder, status, type, date range, search query), implying when to use the tool with specific criteria. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated, missing exclusions or prerequisites.

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