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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal important behavior: searches in any language with normalization (Koln → Köln, Ленинград → Санкт-Петербург) and explains why the date is needed (UTC offset varies by year). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or return format beyond geonameid. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose (returns geonameid) and then provides essential context about language and date. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. It is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. However, the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, error behavior, or how the geonameid is used in calculations. For a search tool with a required query and several optional parameters, the description is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 explains the purpose of 'date' (UTC offset variation) and implicitly clarifies 'query' (place name) through examples, but it does not explain 'lang' (though the language normalization example hints at it) or 'limit' at all. Given zero schema coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: find a place by name and return a geonameid, which is needed for calculations. It also gives concrete examples of language normalization. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from any sibling tools that focus on astrological calculations rather than place lookup.

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 explains when to use the tool (to obtain a geonameid for calculations) and provides context on why the date parameter matters. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tool performs place lookup, this is acceptable. It clearly implies it is the tool for this purpose.

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