search_behaviors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (beyond an optional token), rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and does not add significant context beyond the obvious.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then each parameter with description, and a return value description. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers input parameters and return format adequately but lacks context on prerequisites, error scenarios, or how this tool fits among siblings. It is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that access_token is optional and defaults to null, with caching behavior noted, and limit has a default of 50 and a description. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves 'all available behavior targeting options', with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('behavior targeting options'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_demographics and search_interests by specifying 'behavior'.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison to similar sibling tools is provided; the name alone differentiates it.

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