jolly_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the upstream source (/kampanyalar) and the shape of each item (title + link), which is useful. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are cached or live-scraped, or what happens on fetch failure.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and tucks the return fields into parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces polish but not economy.

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-parameter list tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers what and where from. The only missing piece an agent might want is a hint about result volume or freshness, which is minor given the schema carries the rest.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering options exist.

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 the resource (Jolly Tur campaigns), qualifies it as current, and even identifies the source path /kampanyalar, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It implicitly contrasts with the hotel-oriented siblings, though it never names them explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or reference to the hotel siblings. Usage is strongly implied by the resource itself — a zero-argument listing call for campaign promotions — but the agent must infer that this is the entry point for deals rather than hotel lookup.

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