ad_manager_fb_search_targeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it does not state what data is searched, what the results contain, or any side effects. While it doesn't contradict the annotations, it provides zero additional value.

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 extremely short, a single phrase that lacks a full sentence. While it is concise, it is not informative; it under-specifies the tool's purpose and provides no structure to guide an agent. It is not just concise but terse to the point of being useless.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description should at least state what kind of targeting options are searched (e.g., Facebook's targeting criteria) and what the response looks like. It does neither, leaving an agent with no idea what this tool does or how to use it effectively.

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 100%—the schema describes all three parameters (type, query, searchType) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra information about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no need to penalize further, but no enhancement either.

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 'Search targeting options' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'search_targeting'. It does not specify that this is for Facebook ad management, what 'targeting options' means, or what kind of search is performed. There is no differentiation from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_search_targeting or ad_manager_li_search_targeting, making it ambiguous for an agent.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative targeting search tools on other platforms (e.g., Google or LinkedIn). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate. The description offers no context to help an agent decide.

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