kadam_adv_get_dictionary

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses behavioral traits an agent needs: isps/regions/cities are paginated and searchable because one country can hold tens of thousands of entries, platforms/devices/categories return nested trees, campaign-types is scoped to what the account may actually create, and conversion-templates expose status strings. These are real invocation-relevant behaviors not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its full domain, then conditions per type. The single dense paragraph is long but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; only mild redundancy with the schema enum list keeps it from a 5.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names every valid type, the prerequisites for each, pagination/search scope, and how returned ids are consumed downstream. An agent can invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning on top: the geo id chain (countries ids feed countryId and the campaign's countries field; regions/cities give the campaign's cities ids) and the conditional coupling of campaignType/countryId to specific type values. It stops short of documenting perPage/search edge behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 (Gets) and resource (one reference dictionary used to build campaign targeting) and enumerates all eleven dictionary types by name. An agent can immediately tell this apart from data-fetching siblings like get_campaign or list_campaigns because it is a metadata/lookup tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this instead of guessing IDs — every targeting field expects the numeric ids returned here,' which is a direct when-to-use instruction. It further routes by type: categories requires campaignType, isps/regions/cities require countryId, cities can be narrowed by regionId, and countries is named as the entry point of the geo chain.

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