Search locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the canonicalization behavior ('canonical keyword locations') and the verbatim-use directive, which is genuinely useful. With annotations covering the read-only safety profile, an agent knows this is safe. No need to re-state safety; the description adds canonicalization context that exceeds what annotations provide.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second delivers actionable workflow guidance. Well front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple search tool with good safety annotations, the description covers the core function and downstream use. However, with 2 undocumented parameters at 33% schema coverage and no explanation of pagination, sorting, or result format (no output schema exists), the description remains somewhat thin. The canonicalization hint is valuable but doesn't fully resolve the ambiguity in how 'limit' and 'country' shape behavior.

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 only 33% (only 'q' has a description). The description doesn't add any meaning for 'limit' or 'country' parameters. The description text mentions 'canonical' and 'city-level tracking' which implies 'country' filters scope, but doesn't explicitly explain how country affects results or what limit defaults to. Of 3 parameters, 2 are undocumented, and the description doesn't compensate for this gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combo ('Search canonical keyword locations') and adds the critical workflow context that the returned location_key should be used verbatim when creating or updating keywords. This distinguishes it from pseudo-search siblings like research_keywords and list_keywords, but doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 clearly states the downstream use case: use the returned location_key verbatim for city-level tracking when creating/updating keywords. This gives strong context on when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it, but the 'city-level tracking' qualifier implies its scope. It doesn't name alternatives like research_keywords.

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