search_behaviors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose if this is read-only, requires authentication (implied by meta_access_token parameter), has rate limits, or what the output entails. The description lacks critical operational details.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks front-loaded detail that would aid understanding.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the context of sibling search tools or provide necessary usage context, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'behavior-based targeting categories' are, how to search them, or the role of parameters like meta_access_token, page_size, and page_cursor, leaving semantics unclear.

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 behavior-based targeting categories' restates the tool name 'search_behaviors' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource is being searched (e.g., Facebook/Meta advertising behaviors) or how results are structured, though it implies targeting categories related to behaviors.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'search_demographics', 'search_interests', and 'search_geo_locations', it's unclear if this is for complementary targeting data or overlaps with them, leaving usage ambiguous.

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