campaign_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'bounded child inventory' which implies pagination via pageSize, but does not explain what child resources are included, any rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the inline schema descriptions.

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 wasted words. However, 'for safe auditing' is somewhat vague and could be tightened to add more value.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full annotation coverage, the minimal description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify which child resources are returned, nor does it help an agent choose between this and the many sibling campaign-reading tools. More context on the inventory scope would improve completeness.

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 all four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarification on pageSize default behavior or how profile interacts with adAccountId).

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 states a verb ('Read') and resources ('campaign and bounded child inventory'), but 'child inventory' is vague about which child resources are returned. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like campaign_get or campaign_audit, especially given the overlapping 'auditing' framing.

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?

Only a vague hint ('for safe auditing') suggests a use case; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as campaign_get, campaign_audit, or campaigns_query. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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