List campaigns

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavior: defaulting to regular campaigns, the ability to fetch automation/double opt-in emails, and the `publish` status for fully sent campaigns. It also tells agents each campaign carries headline engagement rates, which is helpful context for interpreting results.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries useful information about pagination, statuses, or type filtering. No filler or repetition.

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 a read-only, paginated list tool with fully documented parameters and readOnly/destructive annotations, this description is sufficient. It covers the main behaviors an agent needs to call it correctly and gives a hint about the response content ('headline engagement rates').

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all parameters. The description reinforces `type` defaults and status semantics, but adds no new parameter meaning 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?

Description opens with 'Get a paginated list of the campaigns in a profile,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this list endpoint from detail/performance campaign tools and other reach list siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for filtering by status and switching the campaign type with the `type` parameter, but it never names alternatives like reach_getCampaignDetailsV1 or states when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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