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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it 'returns compact records with canonical links,' which informs the agent about the nature and format of the result. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the annotations say.

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 function and return format; the second provides routing to alternatives. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the main decision points: what it does, what it returns, and when to use alternatives. It doesn't explain how filters combine or pagination, but those are detailed in the schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values beyond the 'compact records' note, so the description is complete for an agent to select and call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description mentions 'text, tags, group or preservation filters,' which maps to query, type, group, has_render, and has_world_download, but this is a high-level summary rather than additional semantic detail. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the description adds little beyond reinforcing their purpose, so a 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?

The description opens with a clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('locations'), then specifies the filter dimensions (text, tags, group, preservation) and the return format (compact records with canonical links). It explicitly names three sibling tools and their use cases, making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from get_location, find_locations_near, and research_location.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'For proximity use find_locations_near; for a known ID use get_location; for name-based research use research_location.' This tells an agent exactly when to choose an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when this search tool is appropriate (general text/tag/group/preservation filtering).

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