ghl_affiliate_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the added value here is auth requirements, OAuth scope, endpoint and version header, and pagination behavior for large result sets. It does not describe the response envelope or default page size, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Front-loaded with the plain-language purpose, then progressively more technical detail (endpoint, auth, paging). The leading 'List Campaigns' line and the source-file metadata are mild redundancy, but nothing distracts from the actionable content.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description covers auth, paging, and endpoint specifics. Without an output schema, a brief note on the response shape (e.g., items + total) would have closed the last gap.

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 every parameter (query, trackTypes, onlyActiveLiveMode, locationId) is already documented. The description only reinforces skip/limit as the paging mechanism, adding marginal semantics beyond the schema — 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 and resource — 'Retrieve the list of affiliate campaigns for a location' — which unambiguously separates it from the singular sibling ghl_affiliate_get_campaign and from the other affiliate write/list tools. Scope (sub-account/location) is stated up front.

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 concrete preconditions: a Sub-Account (location) token and the affiliate-manager.readonly scope, plus explicit instruction to pass skip/limit to page through full result sets. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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