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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: matching is fuzzy, missing diacritics are tolerated, results include level and hierarchy path, and results can contain multiple same-named places. This informs agent expectations about output quality and ambiguity in ways annotations cannot. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 but information-dense: it states purpose, core matching behavior, result features, and decision guidance in a few sentences. Every clause earns its place, and the core purpose is 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?

For a two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, key caveats, disambiguation fields, and an action policy for uncertain matches. The behavioral risks are clearly disclosed despite the safety annotations.

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 baseline is a 3. The description adds value by explaining that the returned ids are the mechanism for location-based filtering and that results include hierarchy context for disambiguation. It doesn't add much detail about the limit parameter, but that is already documented adequately in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find Serbian locations by name and return their numeric ids'. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that listing filtering relies on these ids, making its role distinct from search_listings and listing retrieval 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 clearly indicates where this tool fits: it is for finding locations used in listing filters, with fuzzy matching and diacritic tolerance. It gives practical guidance for disambiguating results using level and path, and explicitly advises asking the user rather than guessing. It does not explicitly name sibling search_listings as an alternative, but the context makes the boundary understandable.

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