x ads search targeting interests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: native X fields and pagination are preserved, and monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency. These are meaningful for correct interpretation of results.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second gives the downstream purpose, and the third adds crucial behavioral caveats. Information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 simple search tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, an output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description covers the essential context. The preserved-native-fields and _micro caveats handle the main surprise a caller might encounter.

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%, so the schema thoroughly documents q, count, and cursor. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its mention of preserved pagination lightly relates to cursor but does not meaningfully compensate or extend 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 states a specific verb and resource: search targetable interest categories by name. It further clarifies the purpose by connecting results to the targeting_value IDs required by add_targeting_criterion, and the INTEREST-type qualifier distinguishes it from sibling location searches.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool to find targeting_value IDs for INTEREST-type criteria, giving a concrete downstream consumer. It does not explicitly name the sibling x_ads_search_targeting_locations or state when not to use it, but the INTEREST-type framing provides clear context for the main use case.

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