search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'search' which implies a read operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, or required 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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and typical use case. It is sufficiently complete for an autocomplete search tool.

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?

The schema describes 'query' generically, but the description adds semantic value by specifying it is for city or region names, which helps the agent understand the intended input context. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description provides extra context.

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 action ('search'), the resource ('locations'), and the specific use case ('autocompleting city or region names'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_locations' by explicitly mentioning autocomplete functionality.

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 some guidance by indicating it is 'useful for autocompleting city or region names,' but it does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like 'find_locations' or mention any limitations or prerequisites.

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