willys_get_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description as the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions store-specific scope and replacement status; it does not cover authentication, return format, side effects, or pagination behavior.

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 extremely concise, with a single line that front-loads the core purpose and a second sentence for the migration note. It is not structured with sections, but the brevity is appropriate for a simple getter tool.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and sparse parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits expected return values, pagination mechanics, session requirements, and any prerequisites.

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 only 25% (storeId), and the description adds no parameter-specific details. It does not explain how page, size, or sessionId should be used, or how storeId relates to the 'store-specific' mention.

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 identifies the resource as store-specific campaigns and offers, which clearly aligns with the tool name 'willys_get_campaigns'. It also distinguishes the tool from the obsolete get_offers, but stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves'.

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 explicitly states that this tool replaces the dead get_offers, giving a clear alternative to avoid. However, it does not discuss when to use this over other sibling tools like willys_search or willys_get_product_detail.

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