google_ads_device_targeting_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It details the return structure (three entries in order, each with criterion_id, device_type, bid_modifier, enabled) and explains the mureo convention for enabled=False (bid_modifier=0.0 means delivery off). It also notes that when no criterion exists, criterion_id is null and enabled is True.

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 yet comprehensive, packing all needed information into two sentences. It is well-structured with definition, ordering, and usage guidance, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description fully defines the return format and semantics. It also provides modification alternatives, making it complete for the tool's purpose. The tool has only 2 parameters with clear documentation, and the description adds all necessary behavioral context.

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 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that customer_id is optional and falls back to credentials, and that campaign_id can be obtained via google_ads_campaigns_list. These additions improve usability beyond the schema.

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 'Get the device targeting state for a Google Ads campaign.' It specifies the verb (Get) and resource (device targeting state), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_device_targeting_set by noting that this is read-only and that modification tools exist.

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 tells agents when to use this tool (read-only retrieval) and when not (for modifications, use google_ads_device_targeting_set or google_ads_bid_adjustments_update). It also explains the semantics of the enabled flag and bid_modifier=0.0, providing clear context.

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