search_demographics

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is read-only (implied by 'search' but not confirmed), how results are paginated, what a match looks like, or whether results are localized. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than concise, which caps the score below 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with no annotations, 0% param coverage, and three sibling search_* tools, the description leaves the agent unable to disambiguate or to use the parameters correctly. Incomplete for the context.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured metadata. The description mentions neither 'query' semantics (substring vs full-text, expected format) nor 'limit' behavior. Since this is not a zero-param tool and coverage is poor, description must compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (demographic targeting options), which is clear on its own. Sibling search_interests and search_behaviors make the resource family inferable, but the description doesn't distinguish itself from those siblings (e.g., what qualifies as a demographic option vs an interest or behavior).

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 on when to use this tool versus the two other search_* targeting tools. An agent has to guess whether a query like 'young adults' belongs here or in search_interests. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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