Search for an address

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses the result content (places with coordinates) and the ranking rule (nearest to the user's current location first), which is real behavioral information an agent needs. It leaves unstated what happens when the user's location is unset or when nothing matches, which matters for an open-world search.

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 tight sentences: capability and return ordering first, usage and next step second. No filler and nothing redundant with the annotations.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the essentials: source, scope, ordering, and workflow handoff. The only meaningful omissions are the semantics of 'limit' and the failure behavior when location is unavailable or no results are found.

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 50%: the query parameter is well documented in the schema (Persian or English, with an example), but 'limit' is not described anywhere. The phrase 'returns matching places' only weakly implies a bounded result set, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap, but the schema plus that phrasing keeps it at baseline.

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 verb ('looks up'), resource ('an address or landmark'), geographic scope ('in Iran'), and data source ('on OpenStreetMap'), plus the ordering of results. It is clearly not a save/list tool, though it never names the closest sibling (suggest_places / list_places) to sharpen the boundary.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when a place name is ambiguous') and an explicit follow-up path ('pass the chosen lat,lng to other tools or save it with save_place'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. when the place is already known and should go straight to preview_destination_change.

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