search_geo_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the search operation without mentioning side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'search', but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes value. It provides essential information without extraneous content.

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's low complexity and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching locations) to fully close the loop for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query with examples, location_type with enumerated values and default, and limit with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Search geographic locations for ad targeting.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples (Greece, Athens, Crete) differentiate it from sibling tools like search_interests or search_demographics.

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 examples and parameter options, implying usage for ad targeting location searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternative search tools (e.g., search_interests, search_behaviors), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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