list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It signals a read-only listing operation and explicitly discloses that only published campaigns are returned and that filters are optional. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or auth requirements, but the presence of an output schema covers the return contract. This is adequate for a simple list tool.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filter clause follows naturally. Every word adds value and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient for correct invocation. It could be improved by explicit pointer to get_campaign for single-campaign lookups, but that is a minor gap. Overall, the definition is complete enough for safe and correct use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents author_npub and operator_npub. The description largely restates these optional filters without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate for or add beyond what the schema already 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List published pricing campaigns from the DPYC community.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from get_campaign, which targets a single campaign, and publish_campaign, which creates one. The 'published' qualifier further narrows the scope.

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 identifies a clear use case—listing campaigns with optional filters—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_campaign or how it relates to publish_campaign/list_services. That routing is left to inference from sibling names and context. The usage is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a full alternative-routing guide.

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