Campaigns Suggest Geo Targets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description consistently describes a non-mutating lookup. It adds a useful sequencing hint, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response size, matching behavior, or error cases. The output schema covers some of this, so a middle score is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow instruction is directly appended. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with four documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. The usage hint completes the picture by clarifying where it fits in the broader campaign-targeting workflow.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters including defaults and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that place names map to geo target IDs, which is expected at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Looks up') and resource ('geo target ids for place names'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling campaigns_add_campaign_targeting by framing this as the lookup step in that workflow.

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?

'Use before add_campaign_targeting' explicitly tells the agent when this tool fits in the workflow. This is direct, actionable guidance that prevents misordering the lookup and the subsequent targeting step.

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