Location Search

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

The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the types of queries supported (place names, POIs, etc.), optional category filtering, and the nature of results (coordinates, addresses, metadata). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 sentences front-load the core action and then provide additional detail. Every sentence is meaningful, no redundancy, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main inputs and outputs. It mentions geocoding for various entity types and category filtering, but it does not explicitly mention the required parameters (text, target, reference_location) or the dependency between target and poi_categories, though these are detailed in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating 'supports geocoding of place names, POIs... with optional category filtering,' which slightly reinforces the text parameter's purpose but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 it searches for locations by name/address to retrieve coordinates, listing supported types (places, POIs, businesses, landmarks, addresses). It specifies an output of coordinates, formatted addresses, and metadata, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode, but does not explicitly differentiate from other search tools like interactive_map.

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 implies usage for forward geocoding and POI search but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like reverse_geocode or geofence_manager. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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