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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It implies a search operation and that valid targeting IDs are obtained, but it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., list of matching interests/locations with IDs), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of detail means an agent may not know what to expect from the response.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it does and when to use it, but omits the response structure (e.g., whether it returns a list, which fields like 'id' and 'name' are included). For an agent to correctly consume the result and pass IDs to create_x_ad_draft, this information is important. The absence of an output schema raises the burden on the description, which is not fully met.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), including 'kind' options and the purpose of companyId. The description adds little beyond restating the purpose context ('valid targeting ids for create_x_ad_draft') and does not elaborate on parameter values or constraints. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('X Ads targeting'), the scope ('interests or locations'), and the intended use case ('when designing an X ad draft and you need valid targeting ids for create_x_ad_draft'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools like search_ad_targeting and aligns with the create_x_ad_draft sibling.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'when designing an X ad draft and you need valid targeting ids for create_x_ad_draft.' This gives clear context and the purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools (e.g., search_ad_targeting), leaving a minor gap.

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