gads_campaign_audience_targeting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (shows lists) and details the returned fields (targeting setting, bid modifier, inclusion/exclusion). However, it does not mention what happens if parameters are omitted, error handling, or any side effects. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output details. It is front-loaded and does not include redundant information, though it could be slightly restructured for readability.

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 should explain return values adequately. It mentions audiences, targeting setting, bid modifier, and lists (inclusion/exclusion), which provides a good overview. However, it does not specify whether results are scoped to all campaigns or require a campaign_id, nor does it detail the format or additional fields like audience names or IDs. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Both parameters (customer_id and campaign_id) are described in the schema with clear purposes. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional constraints or formatting details are provided.

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 retrieves audiences attached to campaigns, specifying the targeting setting (observation vs targeting) and bid modifier, and mentions both inclusion and exclusion lists. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gads_list_audiences which likely list all audiences, and gads_list_campaigns which list campaigns, by focusing on the campaign-audience association with additional details.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, relying on the user to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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