ghl_email_list_bulk_action_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context beyond that: the exact endpoint, the required v3 header, sub-account token requirement, and OAuth scope. However, it says nothing about return payload shape, page-size limits, or rate limits, which limits it to 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then endpoint, auth, scope, and pagination in four compact lines. The provenance clause '(source: v3/emails-v3.json)' is marginal noise but costs only a few 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the definition covers purpose, auth requirements, scoping, and pagination adequately. The only meaningful gap is any hint about what a bulk action campaign record contains or how results are ordered.

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 limit/offset, status enum, search, and date filters are already fully documented. The description's pagination sentence merely restates what the schema says about limit and offset and adds no syntax or semantics for the filter parameters.

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 ('List/Get list of bulk action campaigns for a location'), which cleanly separates it from the singular ghl_email_get_bulk_action_campaign. It never explicitly contrasts with the adjacent ghl_email_list_campaigns, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope line ('for a location') and prerequisites (sub-account token, emails/campaigns.readonly scope), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over ghl_email_list_campaigns or the legacy campaign list, and no exclusions.

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