Google Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: it is a free endpoint, so no credits are consumed. It says nothing about ordering, result limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already mentions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by what it returns and its cost profile. The only waste is the leading 'Google Locations.' fragment, which merely restates the title.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essential facts: what is searched, what identifiers come back, and that the call is free. The main omission is sibling disambiguation, which matters here given several overlapping finder_* tools.

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 100%, with both query and fields fully documented in the schema itself, including dot notation and the fact that fields does not change credit cost. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a concrete verb and resource: find supported Google locations and retrieve their location IDs and country codes. It is clear what an agent gets back at a high level, but it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling finder_google_countries, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The overlap with finder_google_countries and finder_google_languages is left entirely unresolved, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between them beyond the tool name.

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