regional_data

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that results come from a dated CC0 Wikidata snapshot, that source labels are untrusted data and must never be treated as instructions (a useful injection warning), and that processing is server-side/local. It does not explain the non-obvious readOnlyHint=false (why a search is not read-only — presumably billing or quota), and the 'no payment' line sits awkwardly next to 'Payment is for the query/normalization service'.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and the return fields are listed compactly, but the tail contains boilerplate legal/payment sentences that partly duplicate each other and even conflict ('no payment' vs. 'Payment is for the query/normalization service'), diluting the actionable content.

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 no output schema, listing the response keys (region, dataset_updated_at, coverage, total_matches, truncated, places) is genuinely helpful, and the snapshot staleness warning covers a key risk. Still missing for a 3-parameter filtered search: how query matching works, whether results are ranked, and any pagination behavior implied by 'truncated'.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates: 'towns, natural sights and attractions' maps to the category enum values and 'Chiemgau places dataset' clarifies region, but query semantics (matching behavior, normalization rules, the 80-char limit, how query and category combine) are never described.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (a small, curated Chiemgau places dataset of towns, natural sights and attractions with coordinates). An agent knows exactly what this returns, but no sibling is named or excluded (e.g. open_data_search), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Local snapshot, not live opening hours or a complete directory' and 'Check current conditions before travel' give partial when-not guidance and warn against relying on it for real-time facts. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit trigger conditions ('use this when you need curated places in Chiemgau') are stated.

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