google_ads_device_targeting_get

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses all relevant behaviors: always returns three entries in fixed order, each entry's shape with all fields described, and explains the 'enabled=False' semantic as a mureo convention. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the explanation of enabled semantics is slightly verbose. Efficient for the information density.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description completely details the return shape and edge cases. It references sibling tools for modification, covering all aspects for correct invocation. For a read-only tool with two parameters, it is fully complete.

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% (both parameters documented in schema). The description adds minor context (customer_id fallback, campaign_id source) but mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'google_ads_device_targeting_set' by explicitly noting the modification counterpart.

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 labels the tool as 'Read-only' and directly states 'For modifying, use google_ads_device_targeting_set or google_ads_bid_adjustments_update', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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