search_behaviors

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the optional access_token and cached token behavior, plus the return format. However, it does not explicitly state safety characteristics (e.g., read-only) and the phrase 'Get all' conflicts with the limit parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 summary, clear args list with descriptions, and a returns line. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 covers the essential aspects: purpose, both parameters, and return format. The 'Get all' vs limit conflict is a minor gap, and pagination behavior is not addressed, but for a simple tool with two optional parameters, it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains access_token as an optional Meta API token with cached fallback, and limit as the maximum number of results with a default of 50, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type/default.

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 'Get all available behavior targeting options,' using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('behavior targeting options'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_interests, search_demographics, and search_geo_locations, which target different audience attributes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the description's focus on behavior targeting, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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