suggest_locations

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that ('Does not consume search tokens') and clarifies the return type is a location URI, which matters for a resolver tool. It omits pagination/limit nuance, but the token-cost note is a meaningful addition.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the integration path and the token-cost caveat. No 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (a location URI) and how to use it, plus the token-cost trait. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only edge-case behavior (empty results, pagination).

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 lang, page, count and prefix are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only references the output `uri`, adding nothing about input parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Resolve a city or country name to a location URI') and immediately names the siblings that consume the result. An agent can distinguish this from suggest_concepts/suggest_categories/suggest_sources without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the usage path: pass the returned `uri` as `location_uris` to search_articles/search_events. It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, though it does not state when NOT to use it or how it differs from the other suggest_* tools.

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