meta_search_targeting_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the operation is read-only and focused on metadata, which is useful, but it omits important behavioral context such as required authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the 'type' parameter is invalid.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The list of targeting metadata types earns its place by clarifying the scope of the search. No redundant or filler wording is present.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not mention that 'type' is required, that 'query' is needed for most searches, how 'limit' behaves, or how 'countryCode' and 'locationTypes' narrow results. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema deeply to invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for underdocumented parameters. It does add semantic meaning to the 'type' parameter by listing the categories, but it fails to explain the purpose or behavior of 'query', 'limit', 'countryCode', and 'locationTypes', which are not self-explanatory.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Meta's read-only targeting metadata'), and enumerates the concrete data types it can return (interests, geographies, locales, etc.). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic entity search 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 description implies the tool should be used when targeting metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as meta_search_entities or meta_get_* tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions provided, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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