search_street

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states what is returned (matching street names, toponym id, status), the data source (official register), and a notable behavior (renamed streets found via previous names). It does not cover limit semantics or error cases, but for a read-only search utility this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. Each sentence earns its place: one states purpose, one states return values and data source, and one states a constraint plus an additional capability. There is no redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how queries are constrained. It could explicitly mention limit behavior or result ordering, but nothing critical is missing and the agent can safely invoke the tool.

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?

The name parameter already has a clear schema description, and the description reinforces the Armenian-fragment requirement but adds little beyond it. The limit parameter has no schema description, and the tool description also does not explain it; however, the schema supplies min/max/default, so the agent can infer its meaning. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides partial but not complete compensation.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Search Yerevan streets by (Armenian) name'. It further distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by positioning itself as the portal's stand-in geocoder and specifying that it queries the official street register.

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 clearly says this tool stands in for the real geocoder when a token is unavailable, giving a concrete when-to-use condition. It also notes that names are Armenian only, which implicitly warns against using it for Latin/English lookups, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools.

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