x ads search targeting locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context: 'Native X fields and pagination are preserved; monetary fields ending in _micro are millionths of the account currency.' This goes beyond the annotations by warning about response field semantics and pagination behavior.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives the concrete use case, and the third adds behavioral nuance about pagination and micro fields. Information is front-loaded and each 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?

The tool has a complete input schema, an output schema, strong annotations, and a description that clarifies purpose and response semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it, which parameters to provide, and what behavior to expect. Nothing important 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: all five parameters have descriptive text, examples, constraints, and an enum. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate for gaps because the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search targetable locations by name.' It then explains the purpose, finding targeting_value IDs for add_targeting_criterion, and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_targeting_interests by specifying LOCATION-type criteria. This makes the tool's role immediately clear.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to find the targeting_value IDs required by add_targeting_criterion for LOCATION-type criteria.' This provides clear context on when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative for non-location criteria (e.g., search_targeting_interests), so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about when-not-to-use.

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