Списки ретаргетинга

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, potentially unbounded read. The description adds little beyond restating that it retrieves rules and scope, but doesn't contradict annotations. It fails to disclose pagination limits (though maxItems hints at 10000), rate limits, or output structure.

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 a single, reasonably concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified and front-loads only the general purpose, leaving key details (filtering, pagination) to the schema. It's efficient but lacks informative structure.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context: that it supports filtering by type and specific IDs, and that it may paginate. Given the sibling tools include update/delete/add variants, more guidance on distinguishing this as the 'list' operation would improve completeness.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters including limit, types enum, offset, and retargeting_list_ids. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a verb ('Получить') and resource ('условия ретаргетинга и подбора аудитории'), which gives a general sense of retrieval. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like list_audience_targets, list_dynamic_targets, or list_negative_keyword_shared_sets, all of which are also list operations. The scope is vague about what 'область применения' means in practice.

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 alternatives like list_audience_targets or list_dynamic_targets. There's no mention of prerequisites, pagination behavior, or when filtering by types is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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