serp_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a search, filter, or lookup, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and relationship to a sibling tool. It's front-loaded with key information and has no wasted words, though minor spelling errors ('availible') slightly detract from polish.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'availible locations' means in practice, how results are returned, or any limitations. For a utility tool with moderate complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how parameters interact or examples of usage. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 as a 'utility tool for serp_organic_live_advanced to get list of availible locations.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('list of availible locations'), and identifies its relationship to a specific sibling tool. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from other location-related tools like 'serp_youtube_locations' in the sibling list, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage context by mentioning 'for serp_organic_live_advanced,' suggesting it's a helper tool for that sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serp_youtube_locations' or standalone location searches, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves some ambiguity in usage scenarios.

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