spatial_search_gazetteer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'across the gazetteer fields' scope, which is useful context, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any rate limits. With annotations present, the description adds some value but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 a single, concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it contains only the bare minimum information and does not structure any additional details. While it is not verbose, it also does not add sufficient value beyond the tool name to justify its length.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is very thin. It does not explain the expected response format, any limitations, or how results are ordered or filtered. With no output schema, the agent is left without critical information needed to correctly interpret results, making the description incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It implies q is the name query, but does not clarify its type or format, and completely omits the 'limit' parameter and its default behavior. With no parameter documentation in the description, an agent has no semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('objects') with a specific scope ('by name across the gazetteer fields'). It distinguishes from a generic list operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like spatial_list_objects. The purpose is understandable and specific enough for an agent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would make this tool preferred over spatial_list_objects or other search-like tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'by name'.

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