Создать lookalike-сегмент

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

Beyond the annotations (which state not read-only, not destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: asynchronous processing with status via list_segments, response shape {"segment": {...}}, and rate limits (10/min, 100/hour, 500/day). It also explains the default values for maintain_device_distribution and maintain_geo_distribution, adding significant context beyond the schema.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains parameters, response format, async behavior, and rate limits in a logical sequence. No sentence is wasted; even the quota is essential for operational expectations.

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's complexity (5 parameters, async processing, rate limits) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how parameters affect behavior, what response to expect, how to monitor completion, and rate limits. It is a model of completeness for a creation tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it elaborates the trade-off of lookalike_value (accuracy vs reach) and explicitly states the default true for the two boolean flags. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which do not mention defaults. The name parameter gains no extra detail, but overall the description augments parameter understanding.

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 it creates a lookalike segment, explaining the concept of 'similar users' and referencing the source segment (lookalike_link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pixel_segment or upload_segment_file, which serve different segment creation or upload purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool by specifying the lookalike segment type and the required source segment. It also directs the user to list_segments for checking async status, providing a follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative creation tools like create_pixel_segment, so it lacks an explicit exclusion clause.

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