list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior, default offset/limit values, and the notable API/UI naming difference. It also states the return format as a JSON array, exceeding what a minimal list description would offer, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, note, args, returns, and examples. Every section adds value, though the examples are somewhat redundant with the parameter definitions. It is efficient and clear, but not as ultra-terse as a two-sentence description.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has only two parameters, the description covers everything needed: the operation, pagination semantics, defaults, and examples. It leaves no significant conceptual gaps, making it fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for limit and offset, so the description's Args section is essential. It clearly defines both parameters with defaults and provides usage examples, fully compensating for the 0% 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 opens with 'List campaigns (clients) from AgencyAnalytics,' providing a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the API/UI naming difference (Campaign = Client). This distinctly positions it against sibling tools like get_campaign, create_campaign, and delete_campaign.

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 through the 'List' verb and pagination examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use list_campaigns versus get_campaign or other alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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