search_locations

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only search (finding places) with no mentions of destructive actions or side effects, but it doesn't explicitly state that it does not modify data or mention any authentication/rate-limit constraints. However, the nature of a search tool makes these omissions acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the function, the second explains when to use it, and the third clarifies when not to use it. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to determine when and how to use this tool. It mentions the output includes coordinates and timezone, and it explains the relationship to sibling tools (that they accept place names directly). Without an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it gives enough hints about the expected results.

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 input schema covers both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema; it only references the query parameter in the context of disambiguation. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Find the places a name could refer to') and the resource (place names), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools like get_forecast. It also clarifies its role as a disambiguation step, which is unique among the provided tools.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool: when a place name is ambiguous or when coordinates are needed for other tools. It also explicitly states when not to use it ('not as a routine preliminary step') and notes that other tools accept place names directly, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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