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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions 'search' and 'extraction', implying a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand safety or impact.

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 short (single sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks necessary detail that would make it earn its place; it is not so much concise as underdeveloped. A 3 is appropriate for minimal viability.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description omits essential context about return values, parameter constraints, and usage scenarios. It is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior or handle results 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for parameters. The description does not address any of the three parameters (q, limit, country), failing to add meaning beyond variable names and types. This severely impairs correct invocation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('search') with a modifier ('location-targeted') and a distinctive outcome ('place-link extraction'). It indicates a resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'place', which may cause ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search' for general queries, 'place' for details). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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