Find a place to tag on Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches a 'public place index' and returns location ids, which is mild behavioral context. It does not disclose any additional behavior like pagination caps or fuzzy matching, but given the annotations suffice for safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage context and a direct instruction on how to consume the output. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that annotations cover the read-only nature and schemas document all parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the returned data (location ids), the use case, and downstream consumption. Minor gaps like pagination or result limit are not mentioned, but for a simple search tool they are acceptable; a 4 reflects that it's solid but could include a note about result constraints.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (q, latitude, longitude) with 100% coverage. The description mentions searching by name or lat/long, which is already clear from the schema. No additional parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 stands.

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 verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Threads’ public place index'), and the output ('get location ids'). It clearly distinguishes this from a keyword search by specifying it's for geotagging physical locations, and the downstream usage (pass to post_to_meta) further clarifies its unique role among siblings like search_threads_keyword.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the brand has a PHYSICAL location' and provides a concrete example list. It also tells the agent exactly what to do with the result, including the target parameter for post_to_meta. This gives clear context without needing to reason about alternatives.

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