Search locations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it mentions the lightweight nature of results, and provides a comprehensive error handling section with specific errorCode and retryable fields. This is more than what annotations convey, though it doesn't cover all possible behaviors like pagination.

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 concisely structured: two sentences for the main purpose and then a structured error handling block. Every sentence provides useful information, with no redundant or filler content. The error handling details are presented in a clear, scannable format.

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?

With a fully described input schema, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. The error handling section adds additional context, and the guidance about lightweight results and using get_location for full details fills any remaining gaps for a search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions search fields ('name, address, store ID, or location descriptor') but the schema already lists these plus more. No extra value added.

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 clearly states 'Search ALL locations by name, address, store ID, or location descriptor', providing a specific verb and resource with explicit search scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pinmeto_get_location by noting that the latter should be used for full details.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Returns lightweight results for quick discovery' and directs users to 'Use pinmeto_get_location with storeId for full details'. This provides a clear alternative and decision point, matching the pattern of the high-scoring calibration example.

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