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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (IDs) and their intended use, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination exists, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately conveys the output's purpose, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with only 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main goal and return value but omits parameter explanations and any potential constraints (e.g., pagination, account context). It is adequate for a simple tool but not thorough.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It only mentions 'keyword', which maps to the query parameter, but provides no explanation of the 'limit' or 'ad_account_id' parameters. The agent is left to guess their semantics, especially ad_account_id which appears optional but has no documented purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Meta interest targeting'), and method ('by keyword'). It also clarifies the output's purpose ('Returns IDs for use in targeting.interests'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like adsap_search_behaviors and adsap_search_geo_locations, which target different audiences.

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 implies the tool is for finding interest targeting IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or references to sibling search tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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