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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals non-obvious search behavior: partial-name matching ('short beats formal'), the concrete example 'Louvre' vs 'Musee du Louvre', and the type-overlap nuance where excluded types still return under otherTypes. These are exactly the details an agent needs to avoid failed or misleading searches.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense: four sentences covering purpose, usage, matching behavior, and type-filter caveat. Every sentence adds something operationally useful, with the purpose front-loaded before the caveats.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool finds, why to use it (get an id for add_place), how matching behaves, and how type filters interact with results. The agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds extra meaning around query (partial matching, 'short beats formal') and type (narrows but does not decide), which supplements the schema. It does not add detail for country or limit, but the high schema coverage keeps the baseline at 3 and the added matching context justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find places in the 90,000-entry database') and lists the covered categories, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also explicitly frames the tool as a prerequisite for add_place ('Use this to get an id before add_place'), which distinguishes it from sibling creation tools.

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 description gives a clear invocation context: search for a place to get its id before calling add_place. It does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to alternative search tools, but no search sibling exists in the list, so this is a minor gap.

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