search_geo_targets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the search-by-name behavior; it does not mention matching semantics, pagination, returned fields, or the role of the optional customer_id.

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?

One tightly-scoped sentence with a helpful example and no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about return values, page size, and whether customer_id affects results. It is minimally usable but incomplete for a production call.

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% and the description only clarifies that results are found by name (query). It does not explain customer_id at all, nor does it hint at expected query formats like exact versus partial matches.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('geo target constants'), and method ('by name') with a concrete example. It clearly differentiates from performance-report siblings like get_geo_performance, which report metrics rather than performing constant lookup.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or whether it is a prerequisite for geo targeting. The intended context is only implied by the name and example, with no exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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