snapchat get setup guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuine caveat that the returned material is documentation and 'not proof of account eligibility or live delivery', which usefully warns the agent off treating it as a live capability check. It does not say how current or account-specific the guide is, capping the score.

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?

Three short sentences with the content description front-loaded and the caveat after it. No filler, though the final sentence is somewhat cryptic out of context ('all features are available' relative to what?).

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 zero parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema, the description only needs to explain the content and its limits, which it largely does. The gap is routing: with 20 sibling get_* tools, the agent gets no signal on when this guide is the right source versus health_check or the targeting/spec 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the content returned: campaign objectives, audience workflows, creative format prerequisites, and limitations. That is far more informative than the redundant title. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like snapchat_get_targeting_specs or snapchat_get_write_schema, which arguably also return reference documentation.

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 before claiming all features are available' is the only guidance and it frames a narrow precaution rather than a workflow. There is no mention of when to prefer this over snapchat_health_check (live verification) or the other spec tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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