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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the rate-limit trait ('no hourly quota') and the intended downstream use of results. Not exhaustive, but genuinely additive context rather than a restatement.

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, front-loaded sentences: what it finds, how to use the result, and the operational caveat. Nothing redundant, and the highest-value information (matching rule) comes first.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies nearly everything needed: matching semantics, examples, and result usage. Minor gap is that it does not say what the returned location values look like (code vs. name), which matters for filter construction.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: the single 'query' parameter is a substring match against names or aliases, illustrated with 'united' and 'EU'. Length bounds are only in the schema, but the core matching semantics are explained.

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 and resource (find locations) and narrows the scope to client countries, subregions and regions, plus the matching rule (name or alias substring). No sibling tool overlaps this resource space, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('Use the returned values in filters as base.location') and concrete example queries, so the agent knows the intended workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but no sibling competes for this task.

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