snap_get_entity

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 and the possibility of external/live data are covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by stating the response is the full entity including its targeting configuration, which tells the agent this call is heavier than a summary fetch. It does not say what happens when the id does not resolve, nor how large a full targeting payload may be.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier ("one") front-loaded before the resource list. It is efficient, though the parenthetical reads as an afterthought rather than a deliberate constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only says "in full, including targeting." For a two-parameter lookup tool this is minimally adequate, but the omission of id sourcing and failure behavior leaves an agent guessing on the inputs that matter most given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It partially covers the entity enum by enumerating campaign, ad squad and ad, but says nothing about the id parameter — expected format, where ids come from, or whether it accepts ids from a parent listing call. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Get") plus three concrete resource types (campaign, ad squad, ad) and scopes it to a single record returned "in full, including targeting." An agent can tell this is a single-entity fetch rather than a list or stats call, though it never names a sibling like snap_get_media or snap_get_stats to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions under which an alternative such as snap_api_get or snap_get_stats is preferred, and no pruning of edge cases (invalid ids, missing entities). The only usage signal is the parenthetical "(read-only)", which is implied context rather than guidance.

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