compare_locations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, so the remaining burden is low. The description adds genuinely useful interpretive context: values are relative share of each place's own searches, not raw counts, so a small country can outrank a large one. That prevents a real misreading of the output, though nothing is said about rate limits or failure modes.

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 short, front-loads the core capability, then separates the geos format note into its own block. Every sentence carries information, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with 5 of 6 parameters undocumented and no explicit when-to-use routing against several close siblings, the definition is only adequate for a tool this configurable.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It documents only 'geos' well (comma-separated codes, countries or regions, not worldwide), while keyword, points, category, property, and timeframe are left completely opaque — notably timeframe and property, which materially change results.

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 concrete verb and resource ('one term in up to 5 countries or regions side by side') plus the analytical payoff ('where it matters more, and whether the curves move together'), which is more specific than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like trending_across_countries or compare_many, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope constraint ('up to 5 countries') and the format note for geos, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over compare_many, trending_across_countries, or interest_by_region. An agent must infer the selection condition from the sibling list alone.

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