Find locations

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true already cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral trait that it always returns candidates, which is useful, but the erroneous assertion that a postcode can match contradicts the schema's statement that postcode-layer ids are absent, weakening the transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'or postcode' clause is misleading and does not earn its place, since the schema explicitly denies postcode matching; a corrected version would be fully concise.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it covers the query format, the postcode exception, and the correct alternative tool. The only completeness gap is the internal contradiction between the top description and the parameter schema.

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%, and the query parameter is richly documented with format, qualification syntax, and the postcode exception. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the redundant 'name or postcode' phrase, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool returns location IDs for a name or postcode, which is a clear resource and output. However, the claim that postcodes are matched is contradicted by the parameter schema, which explicitly says a five-digit postcode matches nothing, so the stated purpose is partly misleading.

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 query parameter description gives explicit guidance: a German place name optionally qualified as 'Bundesland > Ort', and it routes postcode queries to search_listings' free-text `location` instead. It names the alternative tool and the condition for using it, leaving no ambiguity.

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