ghl_email_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the endpoint, OAuth scopes, and pagination parameters, which are useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as default sorting, rate limits, or what happens when no campaigns exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and structured: title, action, endpoint, scopes, pagination. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more streamlined by separating endpoint and scopes into a note. Overall, it is efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the response format or fields returned. It also omits default sorting, status meanings, and potential error conditions. For a listing tool, this leaves significant gaps in context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning that limit and offset are pagination parameters. It does not elaborate on search or status parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get list of email campaigns for a location'. It specifies the resource (email campaigns) and the action (list). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling listing tools like ghl_email_legacy_campaign_list or ghl_email_list_bulk_action_campaigns, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name and endpoint alone.

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