Search and Geocode Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it encourages proximity for local results and implies search results are limited to specific entities. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second sentence gives usage guidelines. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 11 parameters, high schema coverage, and existence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for tool selection and basic usage. It does not elaborate on all parameters or return format, but the schema and annotations fill gaps. Could be slightly more comprehensive but adequate.

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 91%, so the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description reinforces the proximity parameter by stating it is 'strongly encouraged' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 POIs, brands, chains, and geocodes cities, towns, addresses. It distinguishes from the sibling category_search_tool by explicitly listing what not to use it for (generic place types), providing a specific verb ('Search for', 'geocode') and resource types.

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?

It explicitly advises against using for generic place types and directs to category_search_tool as a better alternative. It encourages setting a proximity point for local results, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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