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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: case/diacritic-insensitive matching, localized guide fallback, and the meaning of response_size_limited plus pagination via next_cursor. No contradiction with 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?

Four concise sentences, each adding distinct useful information: what is searched, how ambiguity is resolved, localization fallback, and pagination marker semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers the key operational behaviors an agent needs: search normalization, ID resolution, locale fallback, and pagination handling. An output schema exists for return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for query by explaining name matching behavior, for cursor by explaining pagination semantics, and for language by mentioning localized fallback. Only limit is left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap given the description's overall coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find Salsa Vida cities, regions and countries by name.' It also adds unique search semantics (ignoring case and diacritics), clearly distinguishing this location-search tool from the event and guide siblings.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find locations by name and get a source location ID for ambiguous names. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the domain distinction from get_event, get_guide, and search_events is strong enough that confusion is unlikely.

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