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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: prefix (not substring) matching, diacritic-insensitive matching, and the size and composition of the underlying dataset, plus which fields come back.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but it is a verbless noun phrase with a nested parenthetical and a colon-list, so the reader must parse twice to extract the core action. A leading verb would have made it front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still characterizes the result scope and matching semantics. For a three-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 coverage is 67%, and the undocumented parameter is the required one, `query`; the description compensates by explaining that it is a name prefix and that Polish and English spellings with or without diacritics are accepted. `lang` and `limit` are already documented in the schema, so nothing further is needed there.

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 identifies a specific resource and matching rule: places whose name starts with the given text, drawn from a bounded set of 258 Polish/foreign places, returning coordinates, time zone and page. That is far more specific than the title 'Find a place'. It lacks an explicit leading verb and never names a sibling, but the siblings are all astronomy/clock tools, so confusion is implausible.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement about what happens with no match, and no mention that the query must be at least 2 characters. The only usage-adjacent hint is that names may be typed with or without Polish diacritics, which is about matching rather than about choosing this tool.

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