Validate geolocations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a pre-flight validation step, which is useful, but it does not describe the validation outcome (e.g., whether partial results, error entries, or normalized IDs come back). Knowledge of read-only validation behavior is largely carried by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and purpose arrive immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any hint of the validation result shape or partial-failure behavior, which for a 'validate' tool is the most likely thing an agent wants to know.

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 100% and the schema itself documents the {'data': {...}} wrapper plus the geolocation_ids (max 20000) and cities (max 2000) options. The description only restates 'geolocation IDs or city names' and adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (validate) and resource (geolocation IDs or city names), plus the downstream intent ('before using them in targeting'). It is clearly distinguishable from reddit_ads_list_geolocations, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'before using them in targeting' implies a pre-targeting use case, which is decent context. However, it names no alternative and gives no conditions for when to validate vs. when to just list geolocations, leaving usage to inference.

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