tiktok get targeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds important behavioral context: it preserves targeting_spec and automatic targeting settings, does not fall back to classic settings when smartPlus is true, and does not infer delivered audiences or hidden Smart+ signals. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies scope and limitations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, followed by scope limitations and sibling references. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds information, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to the density of technical terms (e.g., Smart+) that might require quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of a rich schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers the key behavioral nuances (Smart+ handling, no inference of delivered audiences) and routes to appropriate siblings. The output schema exists, so return format details are not needed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds value by explaining the smartPlus parameter's role and behavior (reads native targeting_spec, no fallback), which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies that adgroupIds restricts results, adding semantic context beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool reads configured ad group targeting and audience references, enumerating specific targeting dimensions (e.g., geo, language, age/gender, placements). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tiktok_get_audiences and tiktok_get_audience_report by explaining what it does not do (inferring delivered audiences or hidden Smart+ signals).

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 description explicitly provides usage context: it supports both classic and upgraded Smart+ ad groups, and instructs to use 'smartPlus:true' for upgraded Smart+ ad groups. It also explicitly names alternatives (tiktok_get_audiences, tiktok_get_audience_report) and what they are for, giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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