snapchat get targeting specs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context that the data is stored separately and may be missing from normal responses, but says nothing about pagination behavior, response size, or rate limits.

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 with zero filler, and the key qualifier (specs exceeding 500 criteria) is front-loaded alongside the verb. Nothing repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus a fully documented schema cover safety and parameters. The remaining gap is routing: it does not tell the agent how this differs from the sibling snapchat_get_targeting.

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% — adAccountId, adsquadId, limit and cursor are all documented in the schema, including UUID formats and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read separately stored targeting specs', plus a distinguishing characteristic (configurations exceeding 500 criteria). It implicitly separates itself from the ordinary ad squad response, but never names the close sibling snapchat_get_targeting, so an agent still has to infer which targeting tool to call.

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?

The clause 'These can be omitted from the ordinary ad squad response' hints at when this tool is needed — when the main ad squad payload is incomplete. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no named alternative (snapchat_get_targeting or snapchat_get_adsquads), and no guidance on whether to always call this or only as a follow-up.

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