search_demographics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) and describes the return format, it doesn't address authentication requirements beyond the optional access_token parameter, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a cached/live data source. The description provides basic behavioral information but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the opening statement defines the tool's function, parameter explanations provide necessary context, and the return format description helps the agent understand output structure. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and return format. However, as a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it could better address authentication requirements, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling targeting tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but some behavioral context is still missing.

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 description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: access_token as 'Meta API access token', demographic_class with its 7 specific options and default, and limit as 'maximum number of results'. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides essential context for parameter usage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'demographic targeting options', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_behaviors' or 'search_interests' which also retrieve targeting options, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this particular demographic search tool.

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 like 'search_behaviors', 'search_interests', or 'search_geo_locations'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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