List Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds little behavioral context: it says 'for a location' but the schema shows locationId is optional, creating uncertainty about what happens if omitted. No information about pagination, ordering, or return format is provided.

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 with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important details, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description should provide more context about return values or the impact of omitting locationId. It is too thin for an agent to understand the full behavior of the tool, especially given the optional parameter.

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 must compensate. It only hints that 'locationId' identifies the location, but does not clarify that the parameter is optional or describe its format. The phrasing 'for a location' misleadingly suggests location is required, conflicting with the schema.

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 'Get all campaigns for a location' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this is a list operation for campaigns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_list_pipelines or ghl_list_surveys by naming the resource. However, the phrase 'all campaigns' and the optional location parameter create slight ambiguity about the exact scope when locationId is omitted.

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 implies usage whenever campaigns are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; the tool's purpose is clear but contextual usage is only implied by the domain.

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