list_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains pagination semantics ('after: paging cursor from a previous call'), limits, and sort syntax, and the 'List' verb implies read-only behavior. It does not disclose default sorting or potential error conditions, but for a straightforward read-only list this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a helpful one-sentence contextual analogy, and a concise Args block. No words are wasted, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 three optional parameters, no required arguments, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly. It explains the resource, the pagination model, sorting, and the conceptual purpose. Missing return-field details are handled by the 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 the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: limit's range, after's role as a paging cursor, and sort's syntax with '-' prefix for reverse. This is meaningful guidance 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List marketing campaigns') and names the key output dimensions (dates and goals). The editorial-calendar analogy also helps distinguish this from sibling operations like list_campaign_assets or get_campaign.

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 editorial-calendar framing provides a clear context for when this tool is the right choice: when you need a date-oriented view of campaigns. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for specific use cases, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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