Search locations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description is free to focus on what matters: it lists the returned fields (name, region, country, coordinates, timezone, id) despite there being no output schema, and it warns that ambiguous names yield multiple results. That ambiguity note is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to discover by failure.

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 short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, return shape second, chaining guidance third, ambiguity warning last. 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 four-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, returns, downstream use, and the multi-result case. Minor gaps, such as whether the default of 5 results is enough for common cases, are handled by the schema and don't block correct invocation.

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 all four parameters (name, count, language, country_code) are already documented with examples, ranges, and patterns. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search places by name worldwide") and implicitly separates this tool from its weather siblings by framing it as the geocoding step that feeds them. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear downstream usage: use the returned coordinates with get_current_weather or get_forecast, which is the real reason to call this tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-search guidance, but for a geocoder with only weather siblings there is little ambiguity.

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