x ads get targeting criterion

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency, which helps interpret response data. However, the phrase 'Native X fields and pagination are preserved' is vague and does not clarify behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 short and mostly concise, but the first sentence is poorly structured: 'Get a single targeting criterion by ID Native X fields and pagination are preserved' reads as a run-on with unclear punctuation. It front-loads the purpose but the second part is ambiguous. It earns a middling score because brevity is good but structure suffers.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description omits critical usage context. It does not explain when to use this versus the list or search variants, and the vague 'Native X fields' adds little. While the output schema covers return structure, the lack of usage guidance and the ambiguous phrasing make the description incomplete for reliable tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters like lang or with_deleted. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden, and the description adds no extra value.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('single targeting criterion by ID'), which distinguishes it from list and search siblings. The scope is explicit: a single criterion identified by ID, so an agent can immediately tell this from x_ads_list_targeting_criteria or the search tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a specific criterion when you already have the ID, nor does it reference the list or search tools as alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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