get_lookalike

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'incl. processing status' indicates part of the return value. However, there is no explicit mention of idempotency, side effects, or required permissions, which are not inherently obvious.

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 wasted words. It is concise, though extremely brief.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, which are critical for correct invocation. The tool is simple, but the missing information leaves gaps.

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 0%, placing full burden on the description, which fails to define the 'lookalike_id' parameter. The description does not explain what the parameter represents, its format, or expected values.

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's purpose: retrieving a lookalike audience including its processing status. The verb 'Get' and resource 'lookalike audience' are specific, and the additional detail about processing status distinguishes it from other get_ tools like get_ad_group or get_campaign.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_users_lists or other audience-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, filters, or any context for invocation.

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