Search targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-schema behavior: it is a lookup that must precede mutating calls, and it returns a platform match list. It does not mention rate limits, auth scopes, or what happens on no-match.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage constraint and the purpose disambiguation. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. The gap is the six-parameter surface at 0% schema coverage: half the parameters (ids, query, region, country) have no meaning anywhere in the definition, leaving an agent to guess how to narrow a search.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden, and it does explain two of the six: the kind values map to the listed resource classes, and purpose is disambiguated ('target (placement)' vs 'promote (URL lookup)'). However, ids, query, region and country are left entirely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') plus the exact resource classes it operates on (channels, bots, search queries, locations, similar_*), and states the output ('to IDs'). An agent can distinguish this ID-resolution step from the mutation siblings (launch_ad/create_ad) without opening any schema.

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 says explicitly when to call it ('Use before launch/create') and gives a strong anti-pattern ('never guess IDs'), which routes the agent away from fabricating identifiers. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools (launch_ad, create_ad) as the alternatives it precedes, so it is clear context rather than a fully explicit when/when-not map.

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