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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry a coordinate and a page, but an output schema exists, so this disclosure is marginal and no other behavioral traits (ranking, fuzzy vs exact matching, result limits) are mentioned.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core resource ('Suburbs and places matching a name') is front-loaded. The trailing 'for turning...' clause is slightly circuitous but earns its place by conveying the use case.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and roughly why it exists. The only gap is routing guidance relative to find_places and get_place.

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% and the schema already documents the 'q' parameter including the two-character minimum. The description's example values ('Coburg Post Office') hint that multi-word place names are accepted, adding slight value, but nothing beyond the schema's own examples.

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 clearly identifies the resource (suburbs and places) and the matching behavior, with concrete example inputs ('Coburg', 'Coburg Post Office'). It does not distinguish this tool from its sibling find_places, so an agent can't tell them apart from the description alone.

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 'for turning X into somewhere with a coordinate and a page' clause implies the geocoding use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer find_places or get_place instead. Usage must be inferred.

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