list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does add useful context: days is a lookback window ending yesterday, and status values are enumerated (ENABLED, PAUSED, REMOVED, ALL). However, it does not mention pagination, permissions, or whether results are filtered by default beyond the status parameter, leaving some ambiguity for a 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?

The description is compact: one sentence for the purpose followed by a brief structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the format is easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The parameter explanations are sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks any discussion of limitations (e.g., maximum days, pagination) or a hint that customer_id might come from list_accounts, leaving minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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's Args section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains customer_id as 'Account to inspect', days as a lookback window ending yesterday, and status as a filter with explicit values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds semantics beyond mere parameter titles.

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 states a clear action ('List campaigns') with the specific fields returned (budget, status, spend, conversions). It is unambiguous about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gaql_query, which could also be used to retrieve campaign data. Thus it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' criterion.

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. It does not mention that gaql_query is for custom queries or that this is the default listing tool. The description simply lists parameters without contextualizing when this should be preferred.

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