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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields and, importantly, disclosing a specific failure mode ('A 404 may mean this tenant is not enrolled in the insights pilot'). This goes beyond the safety hints and helps agents handle errors correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the prerequisite, the expected return payload, and an error-handling note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or tautology is present, and the output enumeration is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: how to obtain a valid ID, what the tool returns in detail, and what to do on the most likely error. The schema handles provider and parameter constraints, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already define provider as an enum and adGroupId with instructions to use nevent_list_paid_ad_groups. The tool description mostly repeats this prerequisite rather than adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full audience targeting configuration for an ad group.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and is distinct from sibling tools like insights or comparative stats, even naming related tools for context.

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 explicitly says to use it after nevent_list_paid_ad_groups to obtain a valid adGroupId, and it provides a concrete fallback: if a 404 occurs, call nevent_paid_ads_health to confirm pilot enrollment. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and alternative-routing guidance.

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