List campaigns

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly which campaign attributes are returned and by confirming that performance metrics are intentionally excluded. It does not mention pagination behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded, and the metric exclusion placed second. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only campaign list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is not returned, and where to go for the excluded data. Parameter defaults and constraints are already covered by the input schema and annotations.

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 75% and the schema documents limit, status, and customer_id. The description does not add input-parameter meaning beyond mentioning output fields; include_removed remains undocumented in both schema and description, though its name is reasonably self-explanatory.

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 names a specific operation (List) and resource (campaigns), and enumerates the fields returned (status, channel type, bidding strategy, daily budget, schedule, serving status). It also distinguishes itself from campaign_performance, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly states 'No metrics; use campaign_performance for those,' which gives a clear when-not-to-use condition and names the alternative tool. This is more than enough routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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