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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call (1 credit) but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any potential side effects. There is no mention of rate limits or whether it returns partial matches, which is relevant for a search tool.

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 brief, with one functional sentence and a billing note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no wasted text. However, the phrasing is a bit clunky ('get The geo Ids' with capital T), and the billing info is included in the same sentence, which could be separated for clarity but is still concise.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., a list of geo IDs with location names?) and any limitations (e.g., max results). The description is minimal but the tool is simple, so some gaps are acceptable. However, it lacks enough detail for an agent to fully understand the response structure or how to handle errors.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'query' with a description: 'the search query it can be 1 char or multiple'. The description of the tool adds nothing beyond this, as it already covers the semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. It does not add examples or clarify the expected format, but the schema's example 'Washington' is helpful. No additional meaning is provided.

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 says 'search locations and get The geo Ids', which conveys the verb and resource, but it's somewhat awkward ('The geo Ids') and lacks a clear distinction from other lookup tools like companies_name_lookup. It could be more specific about what kind of locations (e.g., cities, countries) and what the geo Ids represent.

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 implies that this is meant for location searches to obtain geo IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling lookup tools (e.g., companies_name_lookup for company IDs, g_services_lookup for services). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the 'Group: geo' hint provides some context.

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