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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on ranking, result ordering, truncation, or that results are candidates needing place_details before use. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence is a purpose-built usage scope rather than filler. The long enumeration of place types is slightly padded but still earns its place by signalling coverage breadth.

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 is the only place an agent could learn about return shape, limit behavior, or how to chain into place_details/segment_associate_place, and it says none of that. Full schema coverage and rich annotations keep it usable, but the tool-to-tool workflow is left implicit.

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 100%: query, language, max_results (1–20, default 10), included_type, location_bias, and radius_meters are all documented in the schema with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Search for real-world places by text') and enumerates the kinds of places covered. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as cities_search, search_hotels, search_attractions, or place_details, so an agent must still infer which search surface to use.

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 states a clear usage context: use it when the user needs to locate a place before adding or editing a trip segment. It gives no exclusions and never names an alternative (e.g. place_details for a known place, or the vertical search_hotels/search_attractions tools), so guidance is contextual but not routing-complete.

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