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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches across languages, aliases, and ISO codes, and emphasizes that the returned `name` is the canonical value to use elsewhere. It does not mention ranking, result shape, or rate limits, but it goes beyond the annotations in useful ways.

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 tightly written sentences. The primary capability is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence gives an actionable downstream instruction without repetition or filler.

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?

For a three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and tells the agent what to do with the result. It could say more about the shape of the returned results or ranking, but the core guidance is sufficient 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 schema already documents query, map, and limit. The description adds nuance to `query` by mentioning supported languages, aliases, and ISO codes, but it does not separately explain map scoping or limit behavior beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: find places by name. It also clarifies the accepted input forms (language, alias, ISO code) and the exact output value, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_maps, but the search/query nature is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a useful workflow cue by saying to use the returned `name` with other tools. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus list_maps or get_place_intro, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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