meta_interest_targeting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or whether results are estimates/approximate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, even though brevity leaves some behavioral and usage details to be filled elsewhere.

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?

With a simple schema (one required string, two optional defaults) and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites or edge cases, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description only adds that the query is a 'topic'. It does not explain the `limit` parameter or the possible `format` values, nor how the query is interpreted by Meta.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Meta ad interests'), and the specific output ('audience size estimates'). This clearly identifies the platform and distinguishes it from sibling tools like TikTok and LinkedIn interest targeting.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as TikTok or LinkedIn interest targeting. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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