search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or quota limits. The description is purely functional and lacks transparency about what the tool does beyond its immediate action.

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 with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key input condition, making it highly focused and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no complex behavior), the description is fairly complete. However, it does not mention the return format or the nature of matched locations (e.g., list vs. single), though an output schema exists which could compensate. The lack of any behavioral or edge-case details keeps it at an average level.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (query: string) with no description. The description adds minimal meaning by indicating that the query is a 'place name', but it does not clarify constraints, formatting, or expected input patterns. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is insufficient.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('weather locations') with a specific criterion ('matching a place name'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_weather that likely retrieve weather for a given location.

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 such as get_weather or weather_dashboard. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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