amazon ads get sb targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: that results are single-page and require cursor/offset continuation, and that archived entities are included by default — a real data-scope disclosure. Rate limits and result ordering remain unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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, zero filler, and the pagination caveat is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing in it restates the tool name redundantly or wastes a clause.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations plus 100%-covered schema carry the rest. The description supplies the two behavioral facts an agent could not infer — pagination and archived inclusion — leaving only minor gaps like ordering and deprecation of the offset/cursor alternatives.

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 every parameter (limit, states, accountId, nextToken, campaignIds, adGroupIds) is already documented in the schema with formats, defaults and bounds. The description only gestures at pagination and archived inclusion, both of which the schema already encodes, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource — 'List one page of Sponsored Brands targets' — and adds scope ('including archived entities'). It is clearly separable from siblings like amazon_ads_get_sb_keywords or amazon_ads_get_sb_campaigns by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the neighboring amazon_ads_get_targets / amazon_ads_get_sd_targets variants.

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?

It gives concrete operating guidance: 'Follow the returned cursor or offset; one page is not the whole inventory,' which tells the agent this is a paginated enumeration rather than a one-shot fetch. It does not, however, indicate when to prefer this over amazon_ads_get_targets (sponsored products) or amazon_ads_get_sb_negative_targets, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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