Search Geo Locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the search behavior and output purpose but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, result structure, or whether results are limited to only targetable locations in the response.

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?

A single, focused sentence states what the tool does and why it is used, with no wasted wording. The key concepts are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 two-parameter read-search tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and expected output (location IDs). The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention of location IDs, though explicit return structure details would make it fully 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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented with types, constraints, examples, and defaults. The description adds the campaign-targeting context but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('targetable locations'), and clarifies the exact purpose: obtaining location IDs for campaign targeting. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the campaign, audience, and ad management siblings.

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 a clear use case: use this tool when you need location IDs for campaign targeting by keyword query. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to select it.

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