list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination ('Paginated') and filterability ('Filter by name if needed'), and its 'List' verb implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention default ordering/limits, cursor usage, the include option, ad_account_id fallback behavior, or the return structure beyond campaign_id, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, pagination, downstream usage of the returned ID, and the optional name filter. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description should provide more context. It explains pagination and downstream use of campaign_id, but it does not explain how to paginate (cursor usage, default limit/order), the include option, or the ad_account_id environment variable fallback. For a tool with 7 optional parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'Filter by name if needed', which lightly reinforces the name parameter but does not add syntax, format, or behavior details beyond what the input schema already documents. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 'List campaigns for the ad account', which is a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes campaigns from other list tools by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_ad_groups or get_campaign, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool to list campaigns and obtain campaign_ids for downstream tools like get_campaign, update_campaign, create_ad_group, and insights tools. It implies when to use it (when you need campaign IDs or a list) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving a minor gap.

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