get_lookalike_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return content, leaving out whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects. The verb 'Get' implies reading, but this is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It immediately states the purpose and lists key components, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining informative.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what is returned. However, it lacks structural details (e.g., format, nesting) and does not clarify the scope (e.g., which account or platform context applies). This leaves minor gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly focuses on the output. It adds meaning by enumerating the returned data elements (seed audiences, expansion percentages, best sizes, notes), which is not present in the schema. This is effective for a parameter-less tool.

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 retrieves the full lookalike audience strategy, listing specific components like seed audiences, expansion percentages, best sizes, and strategic notes. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which cover lookalike strategy.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it's the go-to for lookalike strategy, there is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or situational use cases, leaving room for ambiguity.

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