direct_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. 'Strict read allowlist' adds a mild guardrail nuance beyond the annotations but does not disclose pagination, result volume, or whether selection_criteria narrows results server-side.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no padding. The phrase 'strict read allowlist' is slightly jargon-y for the space it occupies, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the description leaves the only input parameter's format and semantics unexplained, and gives no guidance on scope or usage. For a tool whose sole filter is schema-opaque, this is under-specified.

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?

There is one parameter, selection_criteria, with 0% schema description coverage and a free-form object type, yet the description says nothing about its expected shape or meaning. With no params the baseline would be 4, but here the sole undocumented parameter is left entirely opaque.

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 Direct campaigns'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the singular sibling direct_get_campaign. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over direct_get_campaign or the other Direct list tools, and no stated prerequisites or conditions. The only implicit hint is the read-only framing.

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