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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by listing what results contain (location identifiers, suggestedQuery values, country codes) and by stating an explicit exclusion ('Does not return the current time'), which prevents a common misrouting.

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, each doing distinct work: what it searches, what it returns, and what it does not return. The negative constraint is placed last where it reads as a scoping clarification rather than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the key response fields, and the pagination behavior for namesake candidates is handled by the schema. It could go one step further and explain how suggestedQuery should be used in a follow-up call, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 query, limit, countryCode, and the candidate pagination parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, example formats, or candidateLimit/candidateOffset guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('searches and disambiguates') and enumerates the resource types covered: cities, countries, abbreviations, and time zones. A reader can distinguish it from time-arithmetic siblings like convert_time or get_current_time, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'disambiguates' suggests it is the entry point when a place name is ambiguous, and 'Does not return the current time' nudges the agent toward get_current_time. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_location_by_id or how to follow up with suggestedQuery.

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