crehq_locations_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a multi-field search, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on any behavioral traits such as result ordering, fuzzy matching behavior, pagination limits, or whether all fields are optional. This is adequate for a straightforward search tool but lacks richness.

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 consists of two sentences, is front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero wasted words. Every phrase adds information: the search fields, the fuzzy use case, and the contrast with ID lookup.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core use case and parameter semantics (via schema). It does not mention return values or response format, but that is often implied for search endpoints. It also fails to differentiate from other location search variants like `crehq_locations_nearby`, but given the explicit field list, it is fairly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter names in narrative form ('name, brand, street address, city/state/geography') but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention that all fields are optional or how they combine, which would add value.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('locations'), and scope ('across multiple fields at once'). It enumerates the fields (name, brand, street address, city/state/geography) and explicitly distinguishes from ID-based lookup with 'rather than an id.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like `crehq_location_get`.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when you have a fuzzy description of a physical place rather than an id.' This supplies a clear use case and an exclusion (not for exact ID lookups). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the 'rather than an id' implies `crehq_location_get`, and the multi-field search is clearly distinct from simpler list or nearby tools.

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