search_places

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it discloses read-only behavior, the absence of asset involvement, and a JSON places array return. This is adequate for a simple lookup, though it does not describe edge cases such as no-match or multiple ambiguous matches.

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?

Tight and well-structured with Args and Returns sections; every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return shape, and an output schema exists. Minor details like partial-match behavior or empty-result handling are missing, but this is acceptable for a one-parameter gazetteer lookup.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'name' (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with a clear explanation and an example: 'name: Place name to look for (e.g. 'Lisbon')'.

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: 'Look a place name up in Immich's built-in gazetteer (no assets involved)'. The 'no assets involved' clause distinguishes it from sibling asset-focused searches like search_smart or search_metadata.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this to resolve a spelling or get coordinates for a place before a geographic search.' This clarifies when to call, though it does not name alternative tools to prefer instead.

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