search_targets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: kind-specific search modes, semicolon-separated ids for similar lookups, and purpose-specific target vs promote semantics. The 'field=bots vs promote_url' reference is somewhat opaque but does not contradict the 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 very compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every line adds density, though the telegraphic style and unexplained 'field=bots' phrasing hurt readability slightly.

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 output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the most critical distinctions (kind, purpose, ids). But it leaves several parameters implicit and includes a confusing field reference, so the overall picture is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking it on a first attempt.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains kind, purpose, and the ids behavior for similar_* kinds. It leaves query, region, and country unexplained, and the 'field' reference does not map cleanly to any input schema property, so parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair, 'Search targeting entities', and enumerates the six kinds of entities covered. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_targeting_reference, which keeps it from a 5, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to know what it searches.

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?

It gives useful in-tool guidance for choosing kind and purpose, e.g. 'purpose=target (placement) vs promote (destination URL lookup)', and explains that similar_* modes take semicolon-separated ids. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_targeting_reference, and it does not explain how query, region, or country should be used.

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