Search places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on result size, matching semantics (prefix/substring/fuzzy), or empty-result behavior — just a restatement of the HTTP route.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title verbatim and the endpoint/tag footer is metadata padding rather than useful guidance. No sentence is harmful, but little of the text earns its place.

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 should convey what a place search returns (place names, ids, coordinates?) and how it relates to reverse geocoding. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape.

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% with a single self-documenting string parameter ('Place name to search for'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no matching or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource (search places) and the parameter domain (name), which is enough to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this from other location-oriented siblings such as immich_reverse_geocode, immich_get_assets_by_city, or immich_search_assets, and simply restates the title in the first line.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus the many other search or geo siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, result scope, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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