snapchat get entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's one added behavioral fact is "verified account ownership," hinting that the call validates the entity belongs to adAccountId and will fail otherwise, but it doesn't say what happens on mismatched ownership or how errors surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource scope up front; nothing is buried. It loses a point only because the long kind enumeration largely restates the schema enum rather than adding new information.

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, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description carries little burden. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance versus the per-type list tools, which would be the last piece needed for fully confident selection.

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 100% — the enum for kind, the UUID-or-numeric entityId rule for audience segments, and the adAccountId/SNAPCHAT_ADS_ACCOUNT_IDS constraint are all documented in the schema itself. The description's kind enumeration merely mirrors the enum and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so 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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the exact resource kinds it covers, so an agent knows this is a single-entity fetch keyed by kind + entityId. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular-typed siblings (snapchat_get_campaigns, snapchat_get_ads, snapchat_get_creatives, etc.), so an agent must infer that those are list endpoints and this is the generic by-ID getter.

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?

Usage is only implied: singular "a campaign" plus a required entityId signals "fetch one known entity," which contrasts weakly with the plural list siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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