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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns a candidate list (not a single resolution) and each candidate is pre-shaped for pasting into a listing, plus it is free to call. Little is left undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the return shape, then the optional filter and cost note. Every sentence carries information not found elsewhere.

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 the necessary work of describing the return value (candidates with a ready `location` object), and both parameters are covered. It stops short of saying what happens on ambiguity or empty results, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 both `q` (place name in any language) and `country` (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) documented in the schema itself. The description only adds that `country` 'narrows the search', which is a marginal restatement rather than new syntax or precedence detail, so 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?

States a specific verb (find/suggest) and resource (place id for a city), and clarifies the intended consumer ('for a listing's location'). The return shape ('candidates, each with a ready `location` object') removes any ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

Clear context for when to use it — resolving a city to a place id before creating or updating a listing — and notes the optional country filter plus that the call is free. No exclusions or named alternatives, though the siblings (post/category tools) are unrelated, so little real ambiguity remains.

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