amazon ads get sd targets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: offset pagination instead of a cursor, the conservative 'partial' marking of full pages, and the caveat that records are not performance metrics. That last note prevents a real misuse (treating targets as metrics). It stops short of describing what a 'partial' page means operationally or what the native media references look like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and carrying eligibility, pagination mechanics, and a data caveat with no padding. Slightly clipped phrasing ('Creatives include native media references') costs a bit of clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers the essentials an agent needs: eligibility gate, pagination model, partial-page flag, and the warning that these are not metrics. The only gap is guidance on choosing this over adjacent SD target/creative tools.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including startIndex's 'use nextStartIndex from the previous page.' The description reinforces the offset model but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read one page of Sponsored Display targets.' That clearly separates it from SD campaign/ad-group/creative siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with amazon_ads_get_sd_negative_targets, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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?

'Requires Display eligibility' is a genuine precondition, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the SD negative-targets or creative siblings. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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