Location Search

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing credit cost (1 per call, +1 for pre-1970 historical overlay), that post-1970 resolution is local and free, that provenance is returned for overlay results, and that results are flagged `ambiguous` on name collisions. These are non-obvious cost and correctness behaviors an agent must plan around.

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?

Front-loads the trigger scenario and the return shape before the cost/caveat detail, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and the mid-section on pre/post-1970 resolution is a long compound sentence that slows parsing, but nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract and does: it enumerates display name, region, lat, lon, IANA timezone, conditional `utcOffsetAtDate`, provenance, and the `ambiguous` flag. Combined with credit cost and the date caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters and a baseline 3 applies. The description still adds value beyond it: the `date` parameter is reframed as producing `utcOffsetAtDate` with historical-DST correctness, and it discloses that a trailing 'City, ST' qualifier in `query` is honored — behavior not evident from 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 specific verb and resource (search for a place, return coordinates and IANA timezone) and anchors it to a real user scenario ('born in Chicago', 'what timezone was Paris in 1985'). An agent can tell what it does immediately, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling `timezone_resolve`, which plausibly overlaps on the timezone half of the job.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use when the user supplies a birth city/hometown/place name and a chart needs coordinates plus timezone. It also implicitly tells the agent to pass `date` when a historical offset is needed. No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. timezone_resolve) is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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