get_location_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's purpose and gives no information about whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: the structure is front-loaded but omits critical context. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide comprehensive context. It does not explain what 'insights' are returned, how locationIds are used, or what the output looks like. This is a simple tool with only 2 parameters, but the description still leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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 coverage is only 50%: customerId has a description, but locationIds does not. The description adds minimal value by implying locationIds are the targeting locations, but it does not clarify their format, semantics, or how they affect the insights returned. The description does not compensate adequately for the missing schema description.

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 clear verb ('get') and resource ('location targeting insights'), but the phrase 'insights' is vague and does not specify what kind of insights are provided. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_geographic_performance or get_audience_insights.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools offering similar insight/reporting capabilities, this lack of differentiation is a notable gap.

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