suggest_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only lookup operation and the purpose, but does not disclose behaviors such as response format, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., no matches). It is not misleading, but it lacks depth beyond the basic action and parameters.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. Every line earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: purpose, relationship to search_jobs, and parameter details. It does not explicitly describe the return value format, but for a location ID lookup the purpose implies the return type. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool; a small margin for improvement remains.

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 fully compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: 'query' (search query with examples), 'kinds' (location types, default all), and 'limit' (max results, 1-30). It adds value beyond the schema, including defaults and constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up city/state/country IDs by name for use in search_jobs filters.' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), identifies the resource (location IDs), and explicitly ties it to a sibling tool (search_jobs), distinguishing it from the other search/retrieval tools.

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 by stating the purpose is 'for use in search_jobs filters.' This implies when to use the tool (before calling search_jobs with location filters). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are obviously different in scope.

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