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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds non-obvious behavior: year/month-only source dates match overlapping ranges, and captureDatePrecision distinguishes them. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it could explain the precision field more explicitly.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies an important edge case about date precision. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations already covering the read-only/non-destructive nature, the description covers the non-obvious date-matching behavior that an agent would not infer from the schema alone. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for the from/to parameters by explaining how coarse date precision affects matching, which is not present in the schema. This improves understanding of the date parameters without needing to repeat schema details.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('locations with a dated Archive warp or public render'), and a clear temporal constraint ('captured within an inclusive time range'). It distinguishes this tool from spatial/other location tools like find_locations_near and find_recently_added_or_modified by its focus on capture dates and Archive warp/public render elements.

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 clearly implies the use case: searching for locations based on capture time range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus siblings like find_recently_added_or_modified or find_locations_near. The usage context is understandable but not fully explicit.

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