os_places_search

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds the free-text matching behavior, which is a genuine behavioral distinction from exact-key lookups, but it says nothing about result ranking, coverage, or failure behavior.

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 definition is five words long, front-loaded with the operation and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately minimal, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

The tool appears among many os_places_* siblings and other search tools, but the description does not position it relative to them. It also omits useful context such as geographic coverage and result ordering; the output schema helps, but selection among siblings still depends on the tool name and inference.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'text' is a free-text query, but it does not describe the optional 'limit' parameter or define expected text content beyond 'free text', leaving the agent to rely mostly on schema constraints.

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 clear operation ('search'), a specific resource ('OS Places'), and a query mode ('free text'), so an agent can tell this is the natural-language address/place lookup rather than a structured lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

'Free text' implies the tool is for unstructured place/address queries, which is useful context. However, the description never says when to prefer this over os_places_by_postcode, os_places_by_uprn, os_places_nearest, or os_places_within, so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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