List campaigns

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 conveyed. The description adds the note about using the campaign id with another tool, which is not behavioral in itself. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default filtering, pagination, or result size, but given the simple list operation and the annotations, the description adds some value without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical downstream usage note. Every word earns its place; it is maximally concise while still being informative.

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 (two optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to use the results (with ghl_add_contact_to_campaign). It does not describe the exact return structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool name implies a list, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 'status' and 'locationId' are described in the schema, including the default for locationId. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'in a location' but that is already implied by the locationId parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers the parameters fully.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('marketing campaigns'), and a scope ('in a location'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clearly naming the resource and the related action (using a campaign id with ghl_add_contact_to_campaign). No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 explicit usage context: it tells the agent that the campaign ids obtained here are meant to be used with ghl_add_contact_to_campaign, which helps in chaining tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and context make the primary use case clear. This is more than implied usage; it gives a concrete downstream action.

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