Search Targeting Interests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds modest context about search semantics and the returned data, but it does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, two bullet args, and a return statement. Every part earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the purpose, key inputs, and return value well enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps include no mention of response_format in the prose and no pagination details, but the schema covers response_format and annotations cover safety.

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 adds useful examples for q ('yoga', 'cooking') and clarifies limit as 'Max results (default 50)', which the schema does not explain for limit. It omits response_format from the prose, but the schema fully documents that parameter with an enum and description.

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: 'Searches for interest-based targeting options for ad sets.' It also states the output, 'Interest IDs and names to use in ad set targeting,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling targeting searches like geolocations or demographics.

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 clearly frames the tool for interest-targeting use cases within ad sets, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as meta_search_targeting_geolocations or meta_search_targeting_demographics, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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