direct_list_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose that this is a read-only allowlisted operation, which is useful and prevents misuse as a write tool. However, it does not explain what 'strict read allowlist' means operationally, whether authentication is required, or any limitations around the listing behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. It loses a point because the phrase 'strict read allowlist' is somewhat opaque and does not earn its place as clearly as a more explicit behavioral note would.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation may be handled elsewhere, and there is only one optional parameter. Nevertheless, the description is incomplete for an agent: it fails to explain selection_criteria, does not route the agent to sibling tools when appropriate, and provides only minimal context about the 'strict read allowlist' mechanism.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the selection_criteria parameter at all. The parameter is optional and accepts an object or null, but the description provides no meaning for how selection criteria affect the returned campaigns. This leaves the agent without any guidance for constructing a valid request.

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 verb and resource: 'List Direct campaigns'. It is straightforward and distinguishes itself from direct_get_campaign by indicating a plural listing operation rather than a single-campaign fetch. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like direct_get_campaign or direct_get_statistics, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as direct_get_campaign, direct_get_inventory, or direct_write. It only hints at a read-only context through 'strict read allowlist', but does not state exclusions or selection criteria for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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