search_targeting_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive mapping operation and lists the detail fields, but does not describe the return format, error behavior, permissions, or any limitations. This is a moderate gap.

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 that front-loads the core action and includes a brief usage note. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and use case, and partially describes return content (names, types, paths). It does not specify exact response structure or edge cases, but these are less critical here than for a complex mutation tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter ('JSON array of targeting IDs to look up'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond confirming what the IDs are. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Map targeting IDs to their full details') and clearly states the output (names, types, paths). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_targeting by focusing on ID resolution rather than criteria-based search.

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 phrase 'Useful for resolving IDs obtained from other endpoints' provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance.

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