find_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds geographic scope and 'best matching' ranking, but does not explain result limits, no-match behavior, or ambiguity resolution details beyond what the schema and output schema likely provide.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately add the critical usage context. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does, where it applies, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 the query parameter already described as 'Address or place name.' The description echoes this without adding substantial new meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List the best matching places') on a specific resource (places in Île-de-France) for an address or name. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like compare_routes by focusing on disambiguation rather than routing.

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 explicitly says 'Use it when a place is ambiguous, before comparing routes,' giving both a clear condition for use and an ordering alongside the compare_routes sibling. This tells an agent when to invoke this tool versus a likely alternative.

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