google_ads_device_targeting_get

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: return shape, field semantics (criterion_id can be null, bid_modifier float or null, enabled bool with specific logic), and the convention for 'enabled=False' meaning bid_modifier=0.0. This exceeds expectations.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with purpose, then return format, then special semantics. It is slightly longer than necessary due to detailed return shape, but every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides a complete picture: purpose, exact return format, edge cases, and alternatives. Without an output schema, it fully documents the response structure and conventions, making the tool self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score.

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 device targeting state for a Google Ads campaign, specifies the return of three entries (DESKTOP, MOBILE, TABLET) in order, and distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_device_targeting_set.

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?

It explicitly indicates the tool is read-only and directs to modification tools (google_ads_device_targeting_set or google_ads_bid_adjustments_update). It could be improved by noting when to use this get tool versus analyzing device performance, but it adequately guides the agent.

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