snapchat get targeting

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is done. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond that: missing fields mean unknown rather than broad targeting, and performance breakdowns reflect delivery rather than configuration — a real interpretive guardrail an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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, purpose front-loaded, then two tightly scoped caveats. No restatement of the title, no filler, and each sentence carries information the agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 values need no explanation and the read-only profile is annotation-covered; the interpretive caveats fill the main remaining gap. What's still absent is explicit differentiation from the similarly named targeting_specs and targeting_options siblings, which matters in a 20-tool namespace.

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 required parameters (adAccountId, adsquadId) are fully described in the schema at 100% coverage, including the UUID format and the 'never an organization ID' disambiguation, so the schema carries the load. The description contributes nothing about parameters, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Read configured ad squad targeting') and enumerates the sub-domains returned (audiences, exclusions, demographics, geo, placements). It implicitly distinguishes 'configured' targeting from the sibling tools snapchat_get_targeting_specs and snapchat_get_targeting_options, but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 by the word 'configured' versus the specs/options siblings; there is no explicit 'use this when… use get_targeting_specs when…' routing. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ad squad in the account) are stated. The remaining sentences are interpretation caveats, not selection guidance.

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