threads_search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Search" implies a read, but it discloses nothing about result shape, pagination, result limits, or permission/auth requirements — all material for an agent calling it, especially with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the invocation rule immediately after; no filler and nothing buried.

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?

All parameters are optional, there is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what happens if none are supplied nor what the search returns (e.g. location IDs/names). For a discovery tool feeding a tagging workflow, the return contract is a real gap.

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 100% and its descriptions already state the latitude/longitude pairing rule, so the description's "or by coordinates" and "or both" largely restate the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds only slight clarity that both modes may be combined.

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+resource (search locations) and ties it to a concrete use case (tagging in a Threads post), plus the two search modes. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. threads_get_location vs. threads_search_posts), so it falls 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?

"Provide q, or latitude+longitude, or both" gives clear invocation rules for the parameters, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus threads_search_posts or threads_get_location. Usage context is implied (post tagging) rather than explained against alternatives.

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