search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a safe read operation ('search'), which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose details about response format, pagination, or any potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but lacks explicit safety or permission notes.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, and no extraneous information is present.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the context (attaching to Threads posts). A more comprehensive description could mention the expected return type or limit behavior, but the current version is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('q' and 'limit') already documented. The description adds context about the purpose (attaching to posts) but does not enhance parameter-level understanding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 that the tool searches for location tags intended to be attached to Threads posts, specifying the verb 'Search', the resource 'location tags', and the usage context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_location' (specific lookup) and 'search_keyword' (keyword search).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing location tags for Threads posts), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. The context is sufficient to infer appropriate usage compared to siblings.

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