get_targeting_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by explaining that empty lists indicate the form did not embed that taxonomy, and that Stars cabinets never reach this tool. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core content, a key exclusion, and an important empty-list interpretation without redundancy. The main taxonomy content is front-loaded, and the extra behavioral notes are concise.

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 tool has one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return shapes. The description covers what data is available, who should not use it, and how to interpret empty results. Minor references like 'Gram cabinets' are unexplained but do not create a critical gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for the sole 'kind' parameter. The description's user-geo vs channel distinction loosely maps to the kind enum values, but it does not explicitly explain that kind=user, kind=channel, or kind=both controls which taxonomies are returned. It partially compensates but leaves the mapping implicit.

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 resource: countries, languages, topics for user-geo, and channel taxonomies. The tool name supplies the 'get' verb, so the action is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling 'search_targets', but the scope is specific enough to distinguish the tool's purpose.

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 gives useful context: it is for targeting reference data, applicable to Gram cabinets, and explicitly says 'Stars cabinets never reach this tool,' which provides a clear exclusion. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings, but the use case is reasonably inferable.

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