Place search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds real behavior: prefix matching that ignores case/accents/punctuation, coverage of 21 GeoNames languages plus legacy names like Kiev, and a population ranking where an exact name counts ten times its size. It does not say what happens on zero matches or how ties beyond population are broken, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

It is front-loaded and the parenthetical examples are worth their space, but the leading sentence is syntactically broken and forces a re-read, and the single dense paragraph bundles matching, language, ranking and disambiguation without separation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the definition supplies endpoint, required param, cost (5 credits, Tier ½) and matching semantics. For a 4-param read-only search this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, leaving only empty-result behavior and pagination unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, lang, limit and country, including the comma-region convention that the description repeats. The ranking rule adds interpretive value for reading the ordered results, but no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema are introduced, so baseline 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 identifies the resource (place names) and the output shape (candidates with coordinates and IANA zone) and grounds it in a concrete use case, a birthplace field. The opening is a verbless fragment ('A place name to candidates...'), which blunts the specificity a 'resolves/looks up' verb would give, but the resource is unmistakable and it does not read like any astrology-computation sibling.

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?

Context is implied by 'for a birthplace field', and the comma syntax gives a practical disambiguation recipe ('Springfield, Illinois' or 'Springfield, MA'). No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is offered, so the agent must infer that this is the entry point before any coordinate-based tool.

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