snap_targeting_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so "(read-only)" mostly restates structured data. The genuinely additive part is the workflow disclosure that these ids feed snap_set_targeting, but nothing is said about result volume, pagination, or whether an empty search returns the full catalog.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The read-only/safety note and the category list come first, with the downstream routing last — appropriately front-loaded for a lookup tool.

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 correctly signals what comes back (targeting ids) and what to do with them. For a 3-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; the only omission is the semantics of the `search` filter.

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 coverage is only 33%, and only `country` carries a schema description, so the description does some compensation by naming the lookup categories that map onto the `kind` enum. However, the `search` parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a real gap for a free-text filter.

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 (look up) and resource (targeting ids) and enumerates the categories covered: interests (lifestyle, shopper, visitation), regions, languages, age groups. The closing clause makes the intended consumer of the result explicit, so an agent can tell it apart from snap_set_targeting without opening either schema.

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?

"Use the returned ids with snap_set_targeting" gives clear routing to the companion tool, which is exactly the guidance needed for an id-lookup/apply pair. It stops short of full when/when-not guidance (e.g., no note on preferring cached ids or on rate limits), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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