search_campaigns

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses zero results handling, pagination heuristic (has_more may false-positive), rate limits (5/min, 25/hr, 100/day), and that it returns full raw objects without curation. Also mentions error response format.

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: a one-line summary, then a bullet list of parameters, followed by notes on date range, rate limit, pagination, and field differences. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 13 parameters (0 required), no output schema shown but the description includes return format and error response. It covers inputs, behavior, errors, rate limits, pagination, and cross-references to sibling tool. Very complete.

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%, but the description lists each parameter with valid values (e.g., delivery_type enums, statuses), behavior (name substring match, case-insensitive), and constraints (date range must be together). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 starts with 'Search MoEngage campaigns with optional filters and pagination,' clearly stating the verb (search), resource (campaigns), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_campaign_meta and search_templates by focusing on search with multiple filters.

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 explicit guidance: all filters combine with AND logic, zero results not an error, date range requires both fields, pagination details, rate limits, and field name differences vs get_campaign_meta. It tells the agent exactly how to use it and what to expect.

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