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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description then adds genuinely non-obvious traits: partial matches may return goodMatch: false or omit it, an empty object means nothing was found, and a successful call consumes one account credit. Those are exactly the operational details annotations cannot express.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by result-state semantics and cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (coordinates and structured address components), how ambiguous results are signaled (goodMatch), what an empty result looks like, and the credit cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including trimming and non-blank constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that the input is free-text but adds nothing beyond what the schema already states.

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 pair: find coordinates and structured address components from a free-text address or place. That makes the geocoding intent clear despite the generic tool name 'search'. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (e.g., reverse or autocomplete), so sibling differentiation must be inferred.

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?

'From a free-text address or place' implies forward geocoding and thus implicitly contrasts with reverse, but no alternative is named and no when/when-not guidance is given. An agent has to infer whether to use 'search' or 'autocomplete' on its own.

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