Динамические цели

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with large limits/states filters. It only restates the purpose.

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 that states the action and resource with no filler, repetition, or wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its scope.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description lacks routing information to separate it from manage_dynamic_targets and does not summarize return content or filtering behavior. Although the schema and annotations provide structured details, the description itself is too thin to fully guide selection and invocation.

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 six parameters (limit, offset, states, ad_group_ids, campaign_ids, dynamic_target_ids) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 a specific verb 'Получить' (get) and a clear resource 'условия нацеливания динамических текстовых объявлений' (targeting conditions of dynamic text ads). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling manage_dynamic_targets beyond the tool name, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus manage_dynamic_targets or list_audience_targets. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals in the description; usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.

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