ta_search_locations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context: the maximum result count (10) and that it returns location_id for further use. It could mention ranking or error cases but the information provided is sufficient beyond annotations.

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 description is concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the key action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and return value. It mentions the output structure (location_id) and purpose, but lacks details on optional filter usage. Still, it is adequate for a search tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool's description does not add new parameter-level semantics but provides overall context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching TripAdvisor locations by name, specifically listing the types (hotels, restaurants, attractions, geos). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ta_search_nearby by emphasizing name-based search and specifying that the results provide location_id for use with detail tools.

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?

The description implicitly contrasts with siblings by mentioning 'by name' and stating that results are for detail tools, suggesting it is the entry point for name queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for other scenarios.

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