search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what each result includes ('address fields and phone number') and that locations are a built-in entity. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, what happens on empty results, or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 tight two-sentence paragraph with zero waste. It fronts the core purpose, mentions the result content briefly, and closes with a differentiation note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter search tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the key intent, result content, and tool-selection guidance. No output schema exists, but the description helpfully states what fields appear in results (address fields and phone number). It's reasonably complete for a filtered search tool, though pagination semantics are left to the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 9 parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage. However, it does subtly call out organization_id as 'recommended' in the schema itself, not the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add beyond it.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Search for locations (physical addresses/sites) of an organization') and distinguishes it from a sibling: 'use this rather than search_flexible_assets to look up an organization's address or phone.' This is clear purpose with explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Locations are a built-in IT Glue entity (not a flexible asset), so use this rather than search_flexible_assets.' It also implies the context (looking up organization address/phone). This is a model example of when-to-use guidance.

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