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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds a real behavioral constraint — coverage is limited to the US and territories 'for now' — plus what each input shape returns, which is context the annotations cannot supply.

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 scoping statement is front-loaded and the three modes are laid out in a compact parallel structure with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point that the 'With country' / 'With q' clauses read as fragments, but every sentence carries information.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return shapes, and it still names the key returned fields (codes, states). All input modes are addressed; the one gap is the unspecified behavior for a territory code passed as `country`.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying each parameter to a distinct result set (country='US' → states; q → name substring matches with states). The only unexplained case is what a territory code like 'PR' returns under `country`, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the specific resource — the places/codes an advanced search can run against — and explicitly scopes it to the US and its territories, which separates it from the list_*/search_* siblings. The verb 'find' is only implicit, but the phrase 'with their codes' makes the returned entity unambiguous.

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?

It enumerates every invocation mode and what each selects: no args → countries/territories, country='US' → states, q → matching places. It also routes the output to the exact consumers ('run_advanced_search's places, or search_leads' location_code'), so the agent knows both when to call it and where the result goes.

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