Search Meta Ad Geo Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, nondestructive, idempotent, and open world hints. The description adds purpose and parameter details but does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations imply. It discloses that it returns location keys, which is useful but not extensive.

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 concise with two sentences and a parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (location keys) and how to use them. It could mention the response structure (e.g., each location has key, name, type) but is sufficient for basic use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: q with examples, location_types with full enum list, and limit with default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the tool searches Meta's geographic targeting catalog by query string and returns location keys. The verb 'Search' is specific to the resource 'geographic targeting catalog', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_interests and search_behaviors by focusing on geographic locations.

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 usage for finding geo locations to use in targeting, and the parameter details clarify how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools provide natural alternatives for other targeting types.

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