find_places

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (OpenStreetMap), the absence of ratings, and the optional save_as behavior. It doesn't mention any side effects of saving (e.g., creating a table), but the save_as parameter hint is present. Overall, good disclosure for a search tool.

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?

Description is one long sentence but conveys all key points without fluff. It's front-loaded with purpose then examples. Could be split into clearer sentences, but effective. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably details return structure), the description covers essential usage and limitations well. It tells the agent what to expect (fields), warns about a key limitation, and hints at saving results. For a search tool with 3 params, this is complete enough.

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 has 3 params with 0% description coverage EchoParam, so description must compensate. It explains 'query' via examples alludes to it and explicitly documents 'save_as'. But 'limit' is not mentioned at all. So partial coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search for places and local businesses by name or description'. Includes concrete examples and lists return fields. Distinguishes from find_places_nearby (implicitly, by not focusing on proximity) and search_web.

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?

States the query pattern and explicitly warns about data source limitation (no ratings/reviews) and suggests paid Google Places for that need. Doesn't explicitly say when not to use compared to siblings like find_places_nearby, but the limitation note serves as a guide.

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