search_behaviors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that access_token is optional and a cached token is used if not provided, and it describes the return format (JSON string with id, name, audience_size bounds, etc.). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention rate limits or max limit constraints.

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 concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 simplicity, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return format effectively. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, even without an output schema (which is present anyway).

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: access_token (Meta API token, optional) and limit (maximum results, default 50). This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('behavior targeting options'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_interests or search_demographics. The scope is well-defined and immediately understandable.

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 description implies usage for retrieving behavior targeting options but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as search_interests or search_demographics. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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