get_audience_interests

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it mentions pagination support and that the tool is free (0 credits). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the additional cost and pagination context are valuable. No contradiction.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, pagination, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With a simple lookup tool, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, pagination, and cost. It does not delve into integration nuances, but those are not essential for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for both parameters (offset and search), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description only mentions pagination and search without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Search audience interest categories for Instagram audience filters' uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('audience interest categories') and the context (Instagram audience filters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_languages or get_brands, which target other category types.

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 'for Instagram audience filters' provides clear usage context, indicating when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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