campaigns_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "bounded" and "endpoint-specific" without explaining what bounds apply (pagination caps, result limits) or any auth/account-scope behavior, so it contributes little beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structurally, but concision here comes at the cost of substance — the one vague qualifier "bounded" is doing work it cannot support. Appropriately short, insufficiently informative.

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 an 11-parameter tool with nested filter/sorting/pagination objects and required profile/adAccountId, the description leaves critical selection context unexplained: no mention that it is a list/search endpoint, no guidance on using the legacy "id" shortcut versus filters, and no interaction with the existing output schema. It is not complete enough to guide confident selection.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, including nested filter/sorting/pagination objects. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g., how "id" versus "campaignId" shortcuts interact), so baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb and resource ("Query ... campaigns") so the agent knows it is a campaign read operation, but "bounded" is never defined and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like campaign_get, campaign_report, campaign_audit, or campaign_countries_preview. The agent must infer this is the general list/report query endpoint.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say when to prefer this over campaign_get (single campaign), campaign_report (performance metrics), or campaign_audit. "endpoint-specific filters" gestures at flexibility without telling the agent which situations call for this tool.

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