search_places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact not present in the annotations: 'Works without credentials,' which changes whether an agent needs to authenticate first. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination, but the credential disclosure is real added value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the follow-up targets, then the dated-name caveat, then the credential note. No sentence is 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 compensates by stating what each result carries (full jurisdictional form, coordinates, a place id) rather than enumerating fields. Combined with the credential note and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and both parameters (name, count) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies what a 'name' resolves to semantically (bare name to full jurisdictional form plus coordinates), but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond that.

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 and resource ('look up a place in the FamilySearch gazetteer') and explains what resolution produces: full jurisdictional form and coordinates. It is immediately distinguishable from get_place (which consumes a place id) and search_places_at_date (the dated variant).

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'If the place name comes from a record with a date on it, prefer search_places_at_date.' It also tells the agent what to do with results (pass the place id to get_place or get_place_jurisdictions), closing the workflow loop.

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