search_geo

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

Annotations already provide behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns IDs usable in campaign targeting, which is useful context but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence of about 15 words, no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient or structured, but it is generally concise.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and output usage but lacks details on query format, possible response, or types of geo targets. For a straightforward search tool, it is barely sufficient.

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 has one parameter 'query' with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not specify what the query should contain (e.g., a location name, coordinate, or code). This leaves the agent with little guidance on how to form a valid query, despite the low schema coverage burden.

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 searches geo targets for the specific purpose of obtaining IDs for campaign targeting's targeting.locations.include. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'geo targets', and the output is explicitly stated as 'ids usable in campaign targeting'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on different resources like accounts, ads, and audiences.

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 when to use the tool: when you need geo target IDs for targeting.locations.include in campaign targeting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The sibling tools are all different in purpose, so the context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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