search_geo_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication (though meta_access_token parameter hints at it), rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by page_size/page_cursor but not explained), or what 'targeting' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description doesn't cover authentication needs, pagination, or targeting context. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support, this is inadequate.

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. It doesn't explain any parameters—not what the 'query' should contain, what 'location_types' are, how pagination works, or the role of 'meta_access_token'. The description adds no meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 states the tool searches for 'geo-location entities for targeting', which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'geo-location entities' are (e.g., cities, regions, coordinates) and doesn't distinguish this search tool from other search siblings like search_ads_archive or search_interests. The verb 'search' is clear but the resource scope is vague.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for ad targeting), or exclusions. With many sibling tools including other search functions, this omission leaves the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.

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