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 genuinely useful context beyond that: it works without credentials, and it discloses the shape of what comes back (place id, coordinates, jurisdictional form), which matters since there is no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of result limits or ambiguity behavior when a name is ambiguous beyond the 'count' parameter already in the schema.

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 tight paragraphs, each front-loaded with its key point: purpose, disambiguation from the dated variant, downstream usage, and credential requirement. No sentence is redundant and the most decision-relevant routing advice comes early.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned payload (place id, jurisdictional form, coordinates) and the sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it and chain its output 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%, with both 'name' and 'count' documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or matching-semantics detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 immediately clarifies the transformation performed: resolving a bare name to full jurisdictional form plus coordinates. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_place, which consumes the resolved id rather than producing it.

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 (search_places_at_date) and the condition selecting it ('if the place name comes from a record with a date on it'), and explains why (jurisdictions change). It also states the natural downstream tools get_place and get_place_jurisdictions, completing the workflow guidance.

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