search_demographics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that access_token is optional and that a cached token may be used, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. The 'Get' verb implies reading, but more explicit behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 well-organized with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no redundancy or fluff. It is succinct yet comprehensive, fitting the ideal length for a tool with three parameters.

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 all parameters and the return value structure, which is sufficient for a search-like tool with no nested objects. However, it lacks details on potential pagination (beyond the limit parameter) or rate limiting, which might be relevant for large result sets. An output schema exists, so return type is further clarified, but the absence of explicit edge-case behavior keeps it from being a 5.

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 by explaining every parameter: access_token's optional nature and fallback behavior, demographic_class with its enumerated options and default, and limit with its default. This exceeds what the schema alone provides and gives clear semantic meaning.

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 demographic targeting options with the verb 'Get' and a specific resource. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_interests or search_behaviors; the distinctiveness comes from the resource name rather than the description itself.

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 such as search_interests, search_behaviors, or search_geo_locations. It only describes the function itself, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.

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