Search targeting values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds that the tool resolves terms into ids, which is useful, but doesn't describe the output structure or any limits (e.g., pagination, count semantics), so it provides only moderate behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary guidance is in the second sentence. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like and how to use `count`. It does not, and the semantics of `query` outside locations are left implicit. While it covers the most common case (locations), it's not fully complete for an agent to call this correctly without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the kind list (though redundant with the schema enum) and the location-specific usage of query and location_type, but it entirely omits the `count` parameter and doesn't clarify the meaning of query for non-location kinds. This is partial compensation.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('targeting_value ids') and explicitly ties it to a downstream tool (x_ads_add_targeting). It lists the supported kinds, distinguishing it from other tools like x_ads_list_targeting, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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?

It provides explicit guidance for locations ('For locations pass query and optional location_type') and names an alternative for custom audiences ('use x_ads_list_audiences'). However, it doesn't discuss when to use this over x_ads_list_targeting or x_ads_add_targeting directly, leaving some inference to the agent.

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