search_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a search and returns a JSON list with name, country, latitude, and longitude. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or ambiguous matches, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 single-parameter geocoding tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: query semantics, expected returns, and output structure. It lacks a note on when not to use it or what happens when no matching location is found, but these are minor gaps.

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 only defines 'query' as a required string with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining the query is a city or location name and providing concrete examples like 'Prague' and 'New York'.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search'), a distinct resource ('location by name'), and an explicit outcome ('get coordinates'). This cleanly separates it from the weather-focused sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent has a location name and needs coordinates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_weather_by_coordinates when coordinates are already available, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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