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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, giving a good behavioral baseline. The description adds that it returns IDs usable in campaign targeting, which is useful context but does not disclose additional traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format.

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 sentence with 14 words, highly concise. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., format of IDs) and any limitations, which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It states that the 'query' parameter is for searching geo targets, implying it is a search term. However, it does not specify expected format, length, or examples, so it adds moderate meaning but not complete clarity.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'geo targets', and specifies the purpose: to return IDs usable in campaign targeting for 'targeting.locations.include'. It distinguishes from siblings which deal with ads, campaigns, etc., and not geo targets.

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 obtaining geo IDs for campaign targeting, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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