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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety, repeatability and external reach are covered. The description adds that results come from a third-party catalog and enumerates return fields, but the field list duplicates the output schema and no rate limits, latency, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and value proposition before the boundary and related tools. The trailing 'Related:' list names three siblings of which only set_up_market is directly adjacent, which is mild noise.

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 simple read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: purpose, input semantics, no-side-effect guarantee, and adjacent tools are all present.

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 100%, so 'place', 'language' and 'limit' are already documented with examples and bounds. The description only restates that search is by place name with optional language name, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Searches the DataForSEO location and language catalog by place name'), plus what it returns. It also draws an explicit boundary ('Does not save a market'), which separates it from the setup/save siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives a clear motivating context ('so you do not have to guess codes') and one negative boundary ('Does not save a market'), plus a pointer to related tools. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over set_up_market or get_setup_status in concrete terms, so it is context without full routing rules.

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