search_structured

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the search returns (e.g., geocoded coordinates, address matches), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no structured safety hints.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and detailed schema, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., geocoding results, matches), how results are structured, or any constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'street' as 'Street name and number'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or search logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search using structured address components' states the action (search) and resource type (address components), but it's vague about what exactly is being searched (e.g., addresses, locations, geocoding results). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search_location' or 'reverse_geocode', leaving ambiguity about its specific domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_location', 'search_by_tags', and 'reverse_geocode', the description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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