dawarich_search_places

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it is read-only, how 'saved' and 'nearby' results are combined or ranked, whether authentication is needed, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with two distinct search modes.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is not bloated, but it is slightly under-specified; however, conciseness is not the same as completeness, and this description demonstrates good structure.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters, two search modes (saved and nearby), and no annotations, the description is too brief to be considered complete. It fails to explain how to invoke either mode or what the output represents. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but invocation semantics are missing.

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 schema has 5 parameters (limit, query, latitude, longitude, radius_km) with 0% description coverage. The tool description mentions none of these parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unexplained. It does not even hint that 'query' is for saved places or that 'latitude'/'longitude' are needed for nearby search.

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 the tool searches for Dawarich places, specifically 'saved and nearby' places. The verb 'search' and resource 'places' distinguish it from CRUD tools like dawarich_create_place and from search tools for other entities like dawarich_find_visits. However, it could be more specific about what 'nearby' means or how saved and nearby searches relate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or differentiating factors like 'use dawarich_find_points for point-level searches.' The only implied usage is that it is for searching places.

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