locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that the call is free (stated twice). It does not say whether the lookup is a read, whether it requires auth, rate limits, or what the returned code lists look like, so an agent gets little beyond the obvious.

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?

It is a single short sentence and front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, the duplicated '(free) (free)' is pure noise and the sentence never develops the lookup context it gestures at.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape; it names the two returned fields but not their structure or how to feed them into downstream endpoints. For a simple three-parameter lookup with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so q, limit, and country are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 a concrete verb ('look up') and the exact resources returned ('location_code and language_code'), which is more specific than a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as maps_search or local_businesses, and the phrase 'for the paid SEO endpoints' is vague about which endpoints actually consume these codes.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The parenthetical '(free)' hints that it is a helper lookup preceding paid SEO calls, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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