Campaign page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the structural fact that tab contents are not resolved in-place but must be fetched via other tools, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, auth, or how many tabs/rows a real campaign returns, so it stays at a solid-but-not-rich 3.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then follows with a compact, structured mapping of tab types to sibling calls. Nearly every token earns its place; the arrow notation is dense but readable and avoids narrative padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Parameters are fully described in the schema, and the tab-routing note closes the main ambiguity (where product content actually comes from). Only minor gaps remain, such as no note on slug validity beyond the pattern or on empty/invalid 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both slug (with pattern, examples and source) and per_row (default 6, range 1-12) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Open) and resource (Shopino campaign or landing page) and names what it returns: product rows with prices and tabs. The tab-routing sentence explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling surfaces (sh_browse, sh_deals), so an agent can tell what this tool owns versus what it delegates.

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?

Gives a clear mapping of tab types to the sibling tool and parameter that resolves them (listing/shop_id/category_id -> sh_browse, flash_sale -> sh_deals), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement, but the slug description ('campaign slug from sh_deals campaigns') implies the discovery-then-open workflow.

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