changes_check_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks campaign-level changes and requires a timestamp, but does not describe what changes are detected, whether it's read-only, or any auth/rate limit information. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences. The first covers purpose and behavior, the second gives usage guidance and a pointer to tool_help. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic function and usage distinction. However, it lacks details on return format, errors, or authorization. For a simple tool this may be adequate, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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% for the only parameter (timestamp). The description says 'since a timestamp' implying it's the starting point, but does not specify format or example. It defers to tool_help which is incomplete. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field name.

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 clearly states the function: 'Check account-wide campaign-level changes since a timestamp' with a specific verb (check) and resource (campaigns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like changes_check by noting it's a 'broad scan' vs. drilling into specific IDs.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use this for a broad scan') and when to use the alternative ('use changes_check to drill into specific... IDs'). It also directs users to call tool_help for parameter details, which is helpful guidance.

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