search_interests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool returns matching interests with estimates, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for returns, and a brief Args list. It is front-loaded and to the point, though the Args section slightly breaks the flow.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the necessary information: purpose, return value, and parameter explanations. It is largely complete 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 description adds examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'yoga', 'hospitality') and clarifies that 'limit' is max results with default 20. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could further specify the range or format of the limit.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'interest-based targeting options', and specifies what is returned (audience size estimates, topic category, path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_behaviors' and '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 implies usage for searching interests but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_behaviors). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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