find_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it explains the code format taxonomy (IR, US, US-CA, US-CA-807) and clarifies that a blank result means worldwide scope, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses compact labeled lines for the two parameters. Dense but every line earns its place; the code-format line is slightly terse but functional.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers both input modes, the geo-code format, and the blank-means-worldwide convention. The only omission is the meaning of 'limit', which is minor given its default.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it documents both query (partial name or code, with examples) and inside (a code whose sub-locations to enumerate, with an arrow example) well beyond the bare schema. Only 'limit' is left unexplained, though its default of 25 makes it largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the location code (geo) for a country, region, state or metro area by name'), which instantly separates it from sibling lookup tools like find_category and find_topic. The output is named explicitly (a code), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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?

Explains how to drive the two core modes: 'query' for a partial name or code, 'inside' to list sub-locations of a known code. It also gives the critical downstream context that 'every other tool takes them as `geo`; blank means worldwide,' which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not condition, so not a 5.

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