search_places

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ('$0.002 per call'), payment mechanism ('USDC over x402 to x402-places'), and return content ('merchant's artifact and the payment receipt'). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects or safety characteristics.

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: the first states purpose and scope, the second states cost and return. It is front-loaded, every sentence provides value, and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core purpose, cost, payment, and return. It does not specify result ordering, limits, or error handling, but for a search tool with schema-covered parameters, this is reasonably complete. The mention of 'merchant's artifact and payment receipt' gives a sense of output structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only loosely connecting 'near a point or in a named area' to parameters like q, lat, lon, and radius. It does not introduce new semantic details for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('places') with concrete examples ('restaurants, shops, landmarks') and spatial scope ('near a point or in a named area'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights or search_hotels.

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 context for use is clear: it finds places near a point or area. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like discover_service. No exclusions are mentioned, so it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit alternatives.

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