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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: omitting type searches countries/metros/states but never cities, city results carry a parent location whose slug is what the pay tools consume, and ambiguous names may match multiple places. These are exactly the traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and slug-resolution rationale before the fallback and ambiguity rules. Mostly earned length, though the trailing 'REQUIRED arguments: searchText' line duplicates the schema's required array and could be dropped.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what results contain (location type) and the city-plus-parent shape that determines which slug to forward. Combined with the fallback path and the ambiguity guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so type, limit, and searchText are already documented in the schema with an enum and range. The description restates 'REQUIRED arguments: searchText' without adding syntax or format guidance, and never mentions limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search), an explicit resource set (countries, metro areas / DMAs, US states, plus city fallback), and the returned artifact (Levels.fyi slugs). It distinguishes itself from get-location (single lookup) and search-all by naming the latter as the fallback.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (resolve a name into the slug the benchmark tools need), how to narrow with the optional type, and what to do on zero results (fall back to search-all, which applies a fuzzy fallback). It also gives disambiguation policy: pick the place the user means from context, ask if unsure.

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