locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results can be 'strange' and suggests query adjustments, which adds some context about potential issues. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like, leaving significant gaps for a search tool.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and usage tips. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from troubleshooting advice.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and offers query tips but fails to cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable, and it provides query tips that could be considered implicit parameter guidance.

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 the purpose is to search for Facebook location IDs, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_place' or 'search', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific location search versus other search 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 provides some implied usage guidance by suggesting to add a country or remove diacritics for better results, which hints at when to adjust queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_place' or general 'search', nor does it define prerequisites or exclusions.

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