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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's main added value is disclosing the return structure ({results: [{id, title, url, text}]}) and the id-chaining contract with fetch. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, with only minor gaps (ordering, result limits) left unstated.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: accepted inputs first, then return shape and the follow-up call. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies both input formats and an inline return shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only edge details like empty-result behavior or result caps are omitted.

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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, spelling out the four accepted input formats including lat,lon. Additional constraints such as delimiters or formatting examples for lat,lon are not specified.

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 pairs the verb "Search" with a concrete resource (places) and enumerates accepted query forms (name, City/ST, airport code, lat,lon), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It partially differentiates from siblings by naming the follow-up 'fetch' step, though the generic tool name 'search' relies on the title for resource disambiguation.

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?

"pass an id to fetch" gives an explicit two-step usage pattern: search first, then fetch by id. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as places or markets, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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