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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: case- and diacritic-insensitive matching, English fallback for localized guides, and the meaning of response_size_limited with a concrete follow-up action. This adds real value and contains no contradictions.

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 tightly packed sentences, each adding distinct information: core purpose, ambiguity resolution, localization behavior, and pagination semantics. No filler or repetition, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 core search behavior, result ambiguity, localization fallback, and pagination signal. Combined with a rich output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, an agent has sufficient information to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies query semantics ('by name') and cursor behavior ('follow next_cursor'), but limit and language are only indirectly addressed. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 uses a precise verb ('Find') with a specific resource ('Salsa Vida cities, regions and countries') and clear search behavior (by name, ignoring case and diacritics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events and get_event, which target different resource types.

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 actionable guidance: use the returned source location ID to resolve ambiguous names, and follow next_cursor for truncated results. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context for when to search locations is clear enough.

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