list_campaigns

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context by noting results are limited to 'recent' campaigns and by specifying the returned fields (IDs, names, status, send dates), which is valuable since there is no output schema. The vagueness of 'recent' and the lack of pagination details keep it from being a 5.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second states the return payload. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description covers scope, return fields, and account requirement, while the schema covers filtering. It is slightly incomplete because 'recent' is undefined and pagination/limits are not mentioned, but these are minor gaps given the annotations and simple signature.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, aside from reinforcing the 'specific account' scope.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List'), resource ('email campaigns'), and scope ('for a specific Klaviyo account'), and previews returned fields. It is distinguishable from multi-account or detail-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'for a specific Klaviyo account' implies a key selection criterion and contrasts with multi-account tools like multi_account_summary. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_campaign_detail or campaign_report, so usage guidance remains mostly inferred.

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