List Campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it states the return fields, filtering capability, and auto-pagination up to 10 pages. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds value: listing, returned fields, filtering, pagination. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema data.

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?

For a read-only list tool with strong annotations and simple parameters, this description is sufficient. It covers return content, filtering options, and pagination behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list. Sibling context confirms this is the standard listing tool for campaigns.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond echoing effective_status filtering, but it does mention auto-pagination, which indirectly clarifies the limit parameter's behavior. No significant compensation needed.

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 in the ad account,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_adsets or get_campaign_insights. It also enumerates the primary returned fields (name, status, objective, budgets, bid strategy), reinforcing the tool's scope.

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?

Provides clear context for use: listing campaigns in the ad account. It includes a practical hint to filter by effective_status. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource-focused wording makes the tool's role obvious compared to sibling insight or mutation tools.

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