locations_search_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of return format, pagination, or what a search actually does. It is a single word that adds zero value over the annotations.

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 extremely concise—a single word—but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information that an agent needs to determine whether and how to call the tool.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, an agent has no clue what this tool returns, what the search scope is, or how these parameters shape the query. The name hints at 'locations', but the description leaves everything to inference. This is severely inadequate for correct tool invocation.

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?

The input schema describes 4 of 5 parameters (skip, limit, order, companyId) with clear descriptions, leaving only 'email' undocumented. The tool description itself provides no parameter clarification, but since schema coverage is high (80%), it partially compensates. Still, the description fails to explain the search criteria or how parameters interact.

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 is simply 'Search', which restates the verb portion of the tool name without specifying the resource. It fails to indicate that it searches locations, making it a near-tautology that provides no distinguishing information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'locations_task_search' or 'locations_get_location'. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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