os_names_find

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds no behavioral detail about text matching, result ranking, limit handling, or pagination. It neither enriches nor contradicts the annotation profile.

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?

At only three words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. There is substantial room for meaningful scoping and usage guidance without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Although the schema, annotations, and output schema provide some structure, the description omits the search semantics an agent needs to call the tool correctly, such as what 'text' should contain and what kind of place-name matches are returned. Three words are not sufficient for a three-parameter find operation.

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%, and the description contains no parameter information. It does not explain the required 'text' input or the meaning and constraints of 'limit' and 'tool', leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 'Find place names' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name os_names_find. It gives no detail about what the tool returns, how the search works, or how it differs from sibling tools like os_names_nearest or os_places_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as os_names_nearest or os_places_search. The schema implies a text-based lookup, but the description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions.

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