ta_search_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are slim by default, pagination is included, and view:"full" returns complete records. This is meaningful for an agent deciding whether the default response is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action and scope come first, followed by the output contract and the key view modifier. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the agent can expect: location ids, pagination, and slim-vs-full response shapes. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the input schema, though the description could have briefly mentioned scoping filters like geo_name or postal_code.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the categories to "restaurants, attractions, hotels" and clarifying the effect of the view parameter between slim and full records, which complements the schema's enum descriptions.

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 a specific action (search TripAdvisor locations by name) and resource type (restaurants, attractions, hotels). It also explains the key output (location ids for detail tools) and pagination, which helps position it against the get_* and search_nearby siblings, though it does not explicitly name a 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?

The description implies the intended workflow: search by name, then use the returned location id with the detail tools. It does not explicitly state when to prefer ta_search_nearby or ta_get_locations instead, nor does it mention exclusions such as searching by coordinates.

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