direct_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is read-only ('только чтение') and it returns error code 58 before API access is approved. However, it omits pagination behavior, how 'limit' interacts with the result, and the shape of the returned campaign list.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the precondition/error behavior. No filler, though the secondary API-balance mention slightly muddies the single-tool purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source; it covers read-only status and the code-58 gate, which is helpful, but leaves result shape, pagination, and the 'limit' parameter unexplained for a list tool.

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 50%: 'client_login' is documented in the schema but 'limit' is bare. The description adds no parameter-level meaning for either field, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'limit' and its interaction with the campaign list.

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 a specific verb (список/list) and resource (кампании Яндекс Директа) and adds a secondary output (остаток баллов API), which is clear and concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling direct_report, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

It states a precondition (returns code 58 until API access is granted), which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling direct_report or when listing is preferable to reporting. Usage context is only weakly implied.

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