find_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond them by flagging the tool is FREE and by explaining what the returned codes are consumed by, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of describing the return shape or how ambiguous prefix matches are handled.

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?

Three compact sentences, cost signal front-loaded, examples inline, and the consumer-mapping last. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, cost, scope and downstream consumers for a simple 2-param lookup, and there is no output schema to compensate for. The only gap is that it never describes the format of the codes it returns, which an agent must hand to google_serp or local_business.

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 description coverage is 100% and both params are documented, including the DE/AT/CH enum and the 2-character minimum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces meaning with example place names that clarify that `query` is a partial name, but adds no syntax or matching behavior beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb ("Look up") and resource (city/region location codes) with the exact geographic scope (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and concrete examples (Rosenheim, Wien, Zürich). An agent immediately understands what this returns and how it differs from siblings like google_serp or local_business.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: these codes work for google_serp, local_business, news_search, image_search and local_market_check, while all other tools take country codes (with concrete values 2276, 2040, 2756). That is a clear when-to-use-this-then-feed-that-consumer instruction with an exclusion for the rest.

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