linkfetch_search_locations

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the cache policy ('per-query cached globally for a week'), the implied cheapness/no-auth nature of a public typeahead call, and the upstream data source. It omits failure behavior (no-match cases) and any rate-limit or safety-tool interaction, which matters given the linkfetch_safety_* siblings.

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, each earning its place: identity/mechanism, routing guidance, then cost. Front-loaded with the core action and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description does state what is returned (Bing Geo IDs) and that results come from LinkedIn's typeahead, but it doesn't hint at result shape (multiple candidate matches, display names) an agent would need to pick among them. Adequate for a simple 3-param lookup but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (q, fresh, limit) are already fully documented, including the 'rarely needed' guidance on fresh. The description's cache remark loosely motivates fresh but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('Resolve a free-text place name to Microsoft Bing Geo IDs'), names the exact mechanism (LinkedIn's public typeahead), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tool linkfetch_search_jobs. An agent can tell immediately what this does and what it produces.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this first when you need a precise geo_id for linkfetch_search_jobs.' It names the condition that triggers use and the consumer of the output, so an agent knows both when to call it and why. No ambiguity about the prerequisite relationship.

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