location_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds significant behavioral context: credit cost ('CREDIT COST: 1 credit per call'), return fields, the free date parameter with historical DST rules, and the ambiguous-result handling policy. These go beyond what annotations convey and set expectations for side effects and costs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage rule, followed by cost, return fields, and special cases. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds unique value; no filler or repetition. Slightly less concise than the two-sentence ideal, but still well-structured.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (display name, region, coordinates, timezone, and optionally utcOffsetAtDate) and how to handle ambiguous results. It also covers billing and parameter usage nuances, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: the 'City, ST' qualifier honored in the query, the 'boost, not filter' nature of bias params, and the historical DST behavior of the date parameter. This strengthens but does not fully reinvent the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Resolve a place name to coordinates and IANA timezone.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope by stating 'use this first whenever a user gives a birth city rather than latitude/longitude,' which sets it apart from coordinate-based tools and siblings like timezone_resolve.

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 description provides strong when-to-use guidance: 'use this first whenever a user gives a birth city rather than latitude/longitude' and 'NEVER recall coordinates from memory; always resolve them here.' It also gives a clear rule for ambiguity (ask the user). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., timezone_resolve for when coordinates are already known), so it lacks explicit alternative tool naming.

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