list_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify the one important boundary: this returns settings, not metrics. However, it does not disclose pagination, quotas, or that customer_id must reference an accessible Google Ads account. Acceptable but not rich for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a compact two-line arg block. Zero fluff, and every line adds value. Slightly more could be said about pagination but the size is appropriate for a simple two-parameter list 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?

Low-complexity tool with an output schema present (so return values needn't be explained) and both parameters fully documented. The main gaps are unaddressed pagination/limits and lack of explicit sibling routing, but none are critical given the simple surface area and existing output schema.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description fully compensates: it gives customer_id format guidance ('10 digits, dashes optional') and enumerates status's only valid values (ENABLED, PAUSED, REMOVED), which the schema lacks as enums. Complete compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List campaigns in an account with their basic settings.' The parenthetical 'no performance metrics' differentiates it from the performance-focused siblings (get_campaign_performance, get_ad_group_performance, get_keyword_performance). It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the boundary is clear enough.

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 'no performance metrics' qualifier implies the user should turn to a performance tool when metrics are needed, but it never names an alternative such as get_campaign_performance, nor does it route to list_accessible_customers for discovering valid customer IDs. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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