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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does make one genuinely useful disclosure absent from structured fields: results are user-generated content to be treated as untrusted. It omits auth requirements, pagination/limit behavior, and error handling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the safety caveat. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 2-param search tool with full schema coverage, the missing piece is what comes back: with no output schema, the description does not indicate that results are location entities (e.g. ids/names usable with get_location_info). The untrusted-content note helps but return shape 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%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema (including the 1-100 bound). The description's 'by name or city' maps to 'query' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; 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 clear verb+resource ('Search locations') plus the searchable dimensions (name or city), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_location_info or get_users_by_location, which differ in what they return.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text when to call search_locations versus get_location_info (lookup by id) or get_users_by_location (users at a place).

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