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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it clarifies this is a lookup that does not persist anything, and it names the shape of the returned data (locationCode, place name, country, languages).

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the non-persistence caveat and related tools. Slight redundancy in enumerating return fields that the output schema already provides.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return format or safety. It covers purpose, the negative constraint (does not save), the resolution guidance, and sibling routing — everything required to invoke it 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 100% with all three parameters documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description confirms 'place name (and optional language name)' — reinforcing that language is optional — but adds no format, matching rules, or limit semantics beyond the schema.

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 (searches) and resource (DataForSEO location and language catalog) and names the lookup key (place name, optional language name). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the market-saving flow via the sibling names set_up_market and get_setup_status, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 clear context — use it to avoid guessing codes — and negates the wrong use case ('Does not save a market'). It routes to the related tools by name but never states the explicit trigger condition (e.g. call this before set_up_market to resolve a place), so it falls just short of explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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