search_targeting_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (a dictionary with IDs, names, types), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'search' verb makes side effects unlikely, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 and well-structured with a one-sentence summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. Each part is necessary; the only minor redundancy is the Returns section potentially duplicating the output schema, but it's still brief.

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?

For a simple read/search tool with an output schema, the description covers the inputs and the output. It lacks a note on any default limit behavior or whether pagination exists, but overall it provides enough information to call the tool correctly. Given no annotations, it could be more explicit about being read-only, but that's a minor gap.

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 explains all three parameters in a dedicated Args block, providing a clear meaning for act_id (with an example), query (with examples), and limit (maximum results). Since the input schema has no descriptions, the description fully compensates and adds significant value.

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 the tool searches for available targeting options by keyword, naming the resource (targeting options) and the method (by keyword). It also enumerates the categories (interests, behaviors, demographics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_targeting_suggestions that likely operate on different inputs.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_targeting_suggestions or get_targeting_sentence_lines. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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