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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the description wisely spends its budget elsewhere: objective-scoped location sets, accent-insensitive matching, Turkey's district-level (level=CITY under PROVINCE) behavior, and the parent_name disambiguation caveat. It does not contradict any annotation. It stops short of noting rate limits or result caps.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the purpose and the downstream consumer come first, then objective constraint, then matching/level nuances. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the Turkey district digression is long for what is a general-purpose tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return-format detail is unnecessary. The description adds the one return nuance an agent needs (parent_name as province) and covers two of three params well, with the only real gap being the unexplained advertiser_id parameter.

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 carries the param burden. It ably explains objective_type (with the allowed enum values) and adds real meaning to keyword (accent-insensitive, Turkish spellings), but advertiser_id is never mentioned, leaving one of three params undocumented.

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 ('Searches TikTok geo-targeting location IDs') and immediately anchors the output to its consumer ('the required location_ids field in create_tiktok_adgroup'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like geo_target_search, microsoft_location_search, and tiktok_targeting_search without opening any schema.

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?

Provides strong context on when to reach for it (populating location_ids in create_tiktok_adgroup) and what objective_type must satisfy. It falls short of 5 because it does not explicitly name or exclude the closest sibling geo-lookup alternatives, leaving the agent to infer platform routing.

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