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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, returns matching records, or has any pagination or ordering behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise, though it could productively use additional space to clarify key parameters or behavior.

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?

The entry is minimal: there is no output schema, no parameter details, and no description of filtering semantics. Given that all parameters are optional and there are multiple sibling tools, an agent is left with limited context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description does not explain q, city, category, district, lang, or limit. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how they combine or what values are expected.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the target ('public heritage places'), and the tool name matches. However, 'Kahve Tabela' is not explained, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search tools like search_mavi_koy or search_dishes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as nearby_places, get_place, or search_mavi_koy. It lacks any mention of preferred use cases, query patterns, or when the structured filters are appropriate.

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