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

The 'Read-only' statement aligns with readOnlyHint=true rather than contradicting it. Beyond the annotation, it discloses the return shape (key, name, type, country), which is meaningful behavioral context since no output schema exists; it stops short of discussing rate limits or pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and example queries front-loaded, then the downstream consumers and read-only nature. No sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields is exactly what the description should do, and it does so. The only gap is that meta_account_id carries no description in either the schema or the text, a minor omission for a 4-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents query, country_code, and location_types including the default. The description only reinforces this with example query values ('Ahmedabad', 'Gujarat', '380015'), adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Meta locations') and narrows the scope to city/state/PIN-code geo targeting with concrete example queries. It also enumerates what is returned (key, name, type, country), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces.

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?

Explicitly says the results are meant to feed 'geoLocations' on create_campaign, create_structured, or bulk_create_campaigns, which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling search_targeting, leaving one plausible alternative unaddressed.

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