list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returned campaigns include status, budget, and bidding strategy, but it does not mention include_removed behavior, pagination, or ordering. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the operation, the resource, the scope, and the returned fields.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description is minimally workable: an agent can understand it lists account campaigns and that customer_id is required. However, it leaves include_removed semantics and tool-selection guidance unexplained, which are real gaps for a correct call.

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%, and the description does not explain customer_id format or the semantics of include_removed beyond what the parameter name and default imply. The phrase 'in an account' loosely associates customer_id with an account, but that is minimal compensation for the missing parameter guidance.

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 verb and resource ('List campaigns'), the scope ('in an account'), and the included fields ('status, budget, and bidding strategy'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_accounts and get_campaign by virtue of the plural resource, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 implies usage when a campaign list is needed and supplies the account scope, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, such as get_campaign for a single campaign or audit_campaign for deeper analysis. The usage context is clear but entirely implicit.

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