meta search targeting options

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces 'read-only' and adds the targeting-metadata context, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination behavior or rate limits; this is a minor gap given the strong 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?

It is one front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, resource, and scope all appear immediately, and the list of targeting categories is compact. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the full input schema descriptions, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, this one-sentence description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical behavioral or parameter context is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds some semantic help by mapping the `type` enum values to business categories, but it does not add meaning for limit, query, countryCode, or locationTypes beyond the schema.

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 opens with the verb 'Search' and the concrete resource 'Meta's read-only targeting metadata,' then names the categories it covers: interests, validated interests, geographies, locales, countries, cities, regions, markets, and postal codes. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from broad sibling tools like meta_search_entities.

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 intended use is implied by the targeted scope, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as meta_search_entities or meta_validate_query, nor does it give when-not-to-use conditions. An agent can infer the use case, but not with explicit routing guidance.

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