Search Locations

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that results come from seeded coordinates in demo mode rather than live data, but it does not mention matching semantics, result limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits an agent might need.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or redundant information. Key facts about scope, location, and mode are front-loaded and every word 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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it does not clarify what the agent should expect back: whether matches include coordinates, labels, or just place names. The absence of behavioral annotations and result-format details leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the 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% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already explains that it is pickup or destination search text. The description adds Chennai/demo context but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('known Chennai pickup and destination locations'), and important scope ('real seeded coordinates in demo mode'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_saved_places, but the resource type is distinct enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 implies use within a Chennai ride-booking context when searching for pickup or destination locations, and 'demo mode' suggests test usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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