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. It mentions that 'access_token' is optional with caching behavior, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the token, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and the return format, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks context on integration with sibling tools or broader usage scenarios, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all four parameters: 'query' (search term examples), 'access_token' (optional with caching), 'location_types' (options list and default behavior), and 'limit' (default value). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on parameter interactions or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Search for geographic targeting locations.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('geographic targeting locations'), which is more specific than just the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_interests' or 'search_demographics' beyond the geographic focus.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_ads_archive', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied context is geographic targeting, but this is insufficient for clear usage differentiation.

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