list_campaign_drafts

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the draft-to-parent-campaign mapping and the status field, plus the actionable nature of the returned ID. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with verb + resource, and every clause earns its place — return fields, parent mapping, and downstream tool routing.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned and how to use the results. The only notable gap is the semantics of the optional campaign_id parameter, which neither schema nor description documents.

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, but it never explains what the optional campaign_id does (filter by parent campaign? by draft ID?). customer_id is self-evident, but the ambiguous campaign_id with default '' is a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('campaign drafts') and enumerates the exact fields returned: status, the parent campaign each draft belongs to, and the draft's own campaign ID. The word 'drafts' cleanly separates it from siblings like list_campaigns and get_campaign even without naming them.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the returned draft ID is the target for get_campaign / mutate / add_rsa while editing. This implies the tool is the discovery step before editing, but it doesn't give explicit exclusions (e.g., 'for live campaigns, use list_campaigns').

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