search_geo_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: access_token is optional with cached fallback, location_types defaults to all, limit defaults to 25, and the return format is a JSON string. However, it does not mention rate limits, permissions, or error handling, so it's not fully transparent.

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 structured with Args and Returns, leading with a clear purpose sentence. It is somewhat list-heavy but appropriately sized given the need to document four parameters with no schema descriptions. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers all parameters, defaults, and return format. With an output schema present, it does not need to fully explain return fields, but it does mention key fields. It lacks pagination or no-result behavior, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query with examples, access_token behavior, location_types options, and limit default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states 'Search for geographic targeting locations,' which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_interests and search_behaviors by explicitly focusing on geographic locations.

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 its use for geographic targeting but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_interests or search_behaviors. 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.