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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses matching behavior (accent/case-insensitive substring), result ordering (best-match-first, then fame), and output contents (coordinates, fame rank/tier, links to map and Wikipedia). The retry tip also hints at failure behavior. It does not mention authorisation or rate limits, but for a read-only search that is less critical. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and scope, then details filters and result format, and ends with an actionable tip. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or filler. Structure clearly guides the reader through what, how, and what to expect.

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 search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is quite complete. It covers the matching mechanism, filters, result ordering, output contents, and a failure-retry hint. It does not describe pagination or the exact JSON structure, but the 'limit' parameter is covered in the schema, and the description's result summary is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A 5 would require explicit coverage of pagination or return envelope details.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: it specifies that the match is accent- and case-insensitive (not just a plain substring), clarifies that country can be a name or ISO code (schema also mentions this, but description reinforces), and explains the 'kind' values in plain terms. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema fields.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('39,832 notable places worldwide by name') with detailed matching semantics (accent/case-insensitive substring). It also differentiates from siblings like get_place, places_near, and list_countries by clarifying that this searches by name across all places, rather than fetching a specific place, searching by location, or listing reference data.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: when you have a name fragment to find places. It mentions optional filters (country, kind) and offers an explicit tip ('if nothing matches, retry with a shorter fragment'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., using places_near for location-based search or get_place for a known ID), so it stops short of a 5.

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