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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data provenance (Overture Maps) and refresh cadence ('refreshed monthly'), which tells the agent about data freshness.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with scope and coverage region. It earns its space via the examples and return-field listing, though the packing of many clauses makes it slightly heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (address, municipality, phone, website, coordinates, outlets per municipality), compensating appropriately. The main gap is the unexplained 'country' parameter, whose schema has no description either.

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 67% and the schema already documents q, chain, group, and place. The description maps filtering to words/category group/place and mentions chain outposts, adding only marginal meaning; it does not explain the distinction or overlap between the 'place' and 'country' parameters.

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 resource (individual places/businesses) and verb (search) with a concrete coverage area (Central America and the Dominican Republic) and data source (Overture Maps). It clearly says what it returns, but does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_places, resolve_place, or enrich_place, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 implied by the enumerated search dimensions (words, category group, place) and examples, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative sibling tools (list_places, resolve_place, enrich_place) that could also apply. The agent must infer the routing.

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