ghl_ad_google_targeting_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), API endpoint, version, and required OAuth scopes, providing behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two lines of purpose, followed by endpoint and scopes. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not specify return format. While the tool is simple and annotations cover safety traits, a mention of typical response structure (e.g., list of locations) would improve completeness for agent usage.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description and example. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only implying the search target via 'geo-locations' without explaining how parameters like locationId relate to the query or type.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Search Google geo-locations for ad targeting', combining a specific verb (Search) and resource (Google geo-locations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_targeting_search and ghl_ad_li_targeting_search, which target different ad platforms.

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?

Provides clear context for use (Google ad targeting, requires adPublishing.readonly scope). However, no explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to sibling tools; the differentiation relies on the tool name and implicit platform specificity.

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