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

Even with annotations declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful context: it returns 'best first' matches, provides jurisdiction_id, mentions verified_status/verified_at, and explains that source text is copied data not instructions. This last point is a valuable prompt-injection guardrail that goes well beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and examples, then moves through exclusions, return behavior, and source trust. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or title.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential operational aspects: when to use it, what it returns, how matches are sourced, verification status, and a safety directive about treating result text as data. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds useful query examples and explains that results are ranked 'best first,' but it does not add meaningfully to the schema's parameter definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'find a place or an official resource by name.' It also defines a clear scope condition ('when you do not have a location') and explicitly differentiates itself from a web search and from people search. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from siblings like screen_location and resolve_jurisdiction.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('when you do not have a location') and when not to use it ('not a web search and never searches for people'). It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the provided conditions are clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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