get_interest_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Meta's suggested related interests, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits. The behavioral trait is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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 concise with two clear sections: a purpose sentence and an Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The examples are helpful without being verbose.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: input format, defaults, and the nature of the return value. It could optionally describe the output format, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds comprehensive details: it explains the comma-separated format for interest_list, provides examples of both IDs and names, and documents the default value for limit. This significantly adds meaning 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 clearly states the tool gets 'related interest suggestions from seed interests' and specifies it's for 'targeting expansion'. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_interests.

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 context ('for targeting expansion') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. A clear context is provided, but no exclusions are given.

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