search_interests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication needs (though 'meta_access_token' parameter hints at it), rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page_size' and 'page_cursor' but not explained), or what 'find' entails (e.g., search algorithm, result format). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage.

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—every word contributes to the core purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about behavior, parameters, or usage to compensate for the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, though the output schema mitigates some need for return value explanation.

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 beyond implying 'keyword' relates to 'query'. It doesn't explain 'meta_access_token', 'page_size', or 'page_cursor', leaving all 4 parameters with minimal semantic context. The description fails to bridge 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 'Find audience interests by keyword' clearly states the action (find) and target resource (audience interests), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'suggest_interests' or 'search_behaviors'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'interests' means in this context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_interests' or other search tools in the sibling list. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.

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