find_locality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that results carry county, type and population. It says nothing about matching semantics (exact, prefix, fuzzy) or result caps/ordering, which materially affects how an agent interprets an ambiguous-name result set.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding; the what-is-returned clause comes first and the usage cue second. The 'Florești' example earns its place by making ambiguity concrete.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is a strong compensation. The remaining gap is matching behavior — whether a partial or diacritic-variant name returns results — which an agent must guess.

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 100% and the schema itself documents diacritics being optional. The description adds only that names may be ambiguous, which is context rather than parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Romanian localities) and operation (name matching), plus the returned fields (county, type, population). It is unmistakable against siblings like search_rentals or search_parking, which operate on entirely different domains.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition — use it when a name is ambiguous, with 'Florești' as a worked example. It does not state a when-not case or name an alternative, but no sibling tool overlaps this lookup, so there is nothing to exclude.

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