find_place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the match cap tied to `limit`, and that results include a ready-to-pass `coords` string for the *_coords arguments of the trip tools. The US-only restriction is also worth noting given openWorldHint=true. Nothing about failure behavior or empty results, hence not a 5.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then usage, then return shape. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at the right level: match count plus a `coords` string for chaining into trip tools. It could say what to do when zero matches come back, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, and the gap is exactly `limit`, which the description compensates for by explaining that it caps returned matches. It adds the cross-tool purpose of `coords` output. `near` and `query` are already documented in-schema, so no repetition is needed.

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 ('look up a US address or place') plus the concrete return value ('get its coordinates'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_my_places (saved places) or plan_trip (itinerary). The US scope qualifier also bounds the domain in one word.

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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions: confirming the user's intended place before planning, and recovering when 'a trip tool answers needs_clarification'. That is strong contextual guidance but stops short of naming what NOT to use it for or pointing at get_my_places when the place is already saved.

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