search_interests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the return format as a JSON string with fields (id, name, audience_size, path) and by disclosing that access_token is optional and will use a cached token if not provided. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter types.

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 tightly structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise Args/Returns list. Every line serves a clear informational purpose with no redundancy or 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?

The tool definition covers purpose, all parameters, and return format. While it lacks explicit error handling or limitations, the presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter/return descriptions make it sufficiently complete for a straightforward search operation.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% description coverage, the tool description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query with concrete examples, access_token with caching behavior, and limit with its default value. This provides semantic meaning well beyond the schema.

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 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'interest targeting options'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_behaviors and search_demographics, which target different entity 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 description implies usage by defining the tool as a keyword search for interests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_behaviors or get_interest_suggestions, nor does it provide any exclusionary guidance.

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