Список кампаний

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context: budgets are in rubles and filtering by status/type is available. No mention of pagination behavior, default limit, or performance characteristics.

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 concise with only two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and key features (filtering by status and type), and the second sentence adds a specific detail about budget currency. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior beyond the limit/offset parameters, or default ordering. Missing details on what fields are returned per campaign.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions filtering by status and type, which aligns with the parameters, but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of acceptable values or format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: listing Yandex.Direct advertising campaigns with filtering by status and type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_campaign (single campaign) and other list tools by emphasizing the filtering capabilities and the fact that budgets are in rubles.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or compared siblings like add_keywords, create_campaign, or get_statistics.

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