search_geo_locations

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, and it does almost nothing. It does not disclose that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are paginated, how matching works (prefix, fuzzy, exact), or the meaning of the location_types filter. For an unannotated read tool this is a significant disclosure 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, which is appropriate for the size. It is concise, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than crispness backed by substance.

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 three parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should carry a lot and instead carries almost nothing. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still fails to describe parameter meaning, matching behavior, or usage 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 the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'query' is the required search string, what values 'location_types' accepts, or the role of 'limit'. All three parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb (search) and resource (geolocation targeting options), which is clear enough on its face. However, it is not differentiated from siblings like search_interests, search_behaviors, or search_demographics, which share the identical 'search_' targeting-option pattern. The description gives no signal about what geo targeting uniquely returns or how it differs from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether to reach for search_geo_locations vs search_demographics vs search_interests when building an audience. No prerequisites or context are offered.

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