search_locations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a notable side effect: save_to_file writes full results to a temp file, which is useful. It also lists output format options and states the return type. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how the temp file is handled, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or permissions.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list and a Returns line. It is efficient and front-loaded. A small amount of redundancy exists with schema defaults, but the overall structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and parameter semantics, but lacks usage guidance and fails to address potential concerns like empty results, error behavior, or whether results are paginated. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section documents all five parameters with meaningful context: query, organization_id as optional filter, limit with a max, output_format with allowed values and default, and save_to_file behavior. This adds value beyond the bare schema property names.

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 begins with a clear, specific statement: 'Search for locations by name.' This identifies both the action and the resource, and distinguishes it from list_locations and get_location, which retrieve without searching by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search_* tools, but the resource is clearly stated.

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 no guidance on when to use search_locations versus alternatives like list_locations, get_organization_locations, or search_* tools for other resources. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The only implied guidance is the word 'search' in the first sentence.

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