Search Targeting Demographics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the category list but no additional behavioral details (e.g., output structure, pagination, rate limits). With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is compact and clearly lists parameter semantics, with no filler words. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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 description lacks any mention of the return format, pagination, or how the 'limit' parameter works. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what the search results look like (e.g., whether they come as a list, count, or structure). The description does not mention the response_format parameter, which is only explained via schema. This is insufficient for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

The description provides a clear mapping for the 'type' parameter (adworkposition, adworkemployer, adeducationschool, adeducationmajor) and explains the query parameter 'q'. This compensates for the low schema description coverage (only response_format has a schema description), giving vital meaning to the two required parameters.

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 action (searches) and the resource (demographic targeting options) with specific categories (job titles, employers, education). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like targeting interests or geolocations, though it does not explicitly named them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_search_targeting_interests or meta_search_targeting_geolocations. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and categories.

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