place_autocomplete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the data source (Doctolib) and the missing-coordinates behavior, but says nothing about matching behavior, ranking, or result limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and the caveat second; no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than overlong.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the 'no coordinates' note usefully sets result expectations for a read-only, single-parameter autocomplete. Nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only indirectly implies the query is a place name/city/postal code/address. For a single, near-self-evident 'query' parameter this is adequate but adds little syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific action (place autocomplete) with its scope (cities, postal codes, addresses) and clarifies it is Doctolib-side data. The negative statement 'ne renvoie pas de coordonnées' implicitly separates it from geocode_address, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'autocomplétion' and the field list, and the note about coordinates hints at when another tool is needed. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to the very similar siblings autocomplete, search_city, or geocode_address.

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