search_interests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the access token is optional and a cached token is used, and describes the return format with specific fields. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention error conditions, but the search verb implies non-destructive 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 structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, and every line adds necessary information without fluff.

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 search tool with three parameters, the description covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and auth context. It lacks explicit pagination details but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema lacks parameter descriptions, but the tool description compensates fully: it defines the query with examples, explains the access_token optional behavior, and specifies the limit's default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for interest targeting options by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_behaviors and search_demographics, which target different categories.

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 implies usage for keyword-based interest searches but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_behaviors or search_geo_locations. It offers no when-not guidance.

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