get_phishing_campaigns

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation without mentioning rate limits, data freshness, whether all campaigns are returned (e.g., including inactive ones), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is efficient and no extra fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative while still being concise.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on pagination behavior, result ordering, or what constitutes a campaign. Sibling tools suggest more detail is available elsewhere, so it may be adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the explicit parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not clarify pagination behavior or default values beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all phishing campaigns in your account' clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (phishing campaigns), and scope (in your account). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_phishing_campaign (single campaign) and get_campaign_security_tests (related tests).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_phishing_campaign for a single campaign or get_campaign_security_tests. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or pagination usage.

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