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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: the catalogue is deterministic, entirely local, and never invokes another AI model, plus the escalation path when nothing matches. It still omits match-quality, ranking, or partial-match behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the behavioral guarantee, then the fallback. No filler, though the 'never invokes another AI model' clause could be folded into the determinism claim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the behavioral profile is reasonably covered. But for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the input contract unstated, which is the main completeness gap.

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% for both parameters. The description says nothing about what 'query' accepts (place name, address, coordinates?) or minimum length, nor what 'limit' controls (result count, ranking cutoff). With the schema silent and the description silent, an agent must guess at input format.

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 and resource: searches a deterministic local catalogue and geographic index for places (title clarifies 'Find a chart location'). It also ties itself into the workflow by telling the caller to pass coordinates to the chart tool. It never explicitly says it returns candidate place matches with coordinates, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from every sibling, none of which do geocoding.

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?

Gives a clear when-not/fallback rule: if no result exists, the host should resolve the place itself and pass coordinates onward. However, it never states the primary trigger condition — e.g. call this first whenever a birth place must be resolved before any chart tool — and no alternatives are named. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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