Search for places by name, optionally biased by location and category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Optional latitude to bias results. | |
| lon | No | Optional longitude to bias results. | |
| type | No | Optional place category, for example restaurant or cafe. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Place name or search query. | |
| country | No | Optional country code, for example US. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the basic operation and optional biases, omitting details like search type (fuzzy/exact), ordering, pagination, or returned fields. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly too brief given the tool's complexity, but still concise.
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?
Given 6 parameters, sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how location biasing works, what categories map to type, the default limit behavior, or the response structure. Users would have to infer or experiment.
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 83%, so the schema itself documents most parameters. The description adds little beyond summarizing the optional biases (lat/lon, type). No additional context for limit, country, or query format beyond what schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool searches for places by name, with optional location and category biasing. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings in function but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like find_nearby_places. The description implies biasing is optional but does not specify prerequisites or appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
