search_location

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'searches' but does not specify side effects, return format, pagination, session requirements, or any operational constraints. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient; an agent cannot infer whether this is a pure read or if it modifies state.

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 brief (two clauses) and avoids verbosity, which is positive. However, the structure mixes a purpose statement with a usage instruction in a way that is slightly confusing. It could be improved by separating the usage note into a dedicated 'when to use' section, but it does not waste words.

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 3 parameters and an output schema (not described here), the description is inadequate. It does not explain how matches are returned, how to handle multiple results, or the role of session_id in the search context. Even though an output schema exists, the agent lacks behavioral context (e.g., disambiguation, session management) that a complete description should provide.

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 mentions no parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names (keyword, session_id, expected_version) with zero context. The description does not clarify the purpose of session_id or expected_version, nor the expected format of keyword. This is a critical gap given the low schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: it searches for a residential area, business district, or subway station. This is a specific verb (search) with a clear resource type, and it differentiates from other siblings (no other search tool exists). The additional note about 'multiple user answers' is more of a usage directive than a purpose statement, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers a cryptic usage note: 'multiple user answers should be first selected by the Agent' but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. The note implies a precondition (agent should consolidate user inputs) but is vague and lacks actionable guidance.

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