Find NEON locations

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is additive. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the location_type requirement differs by walk root, and site walks without location_type report typesAvailable. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences carry the core purpose, key constraints, and the natural follow-up action. The first sentence front-loads the resource and filters; the second adds the critical conditional behavior; the third points to the next call. There is no filler or repetition.

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 an 11-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key invocation conditions and workflow. The schema supplies most per-parameter meaning, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. A slightly explicit note distinguishing this from neon_search_sites would make it fully 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?

With 64% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only a high-level summary ('filtered by locationType ... or text, with coordinates and optional proximity') and one behavioral nuance about site walks reporting typesAvailable. This is helpful but does not materially clarify the parameters not covered by the schema.

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 and resource: find locations under a site, domain, REALM, or named location. It also lists meaningful filters (locationType, text, coordinates/proximity) and distinguishes itself from the singular neon_get_location by saying 'Next: call neon_get_location for one location's detail.' This gives an agent a clear, differentiated job.

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 usage context: REALM and domain walks require location_type, while site walks without it report typesAvailable. It also suggests when to chain into neon_get_location. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as neon_search_sites or state when not to use this tool, so it falls one step short of full routing guidance.

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