prng_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reports that the backend API currently returns HTTP 403 for unauthenticated requests and explains why the tool is kept active. This gives the agent clear expectations without hiding known issues.

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 moderate in length but front-loads the purpose well. The detailed explanation of the auth issue, while valuable, is somewhat verbose for a tool description. A more concise version could retain the key signals.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks information about result format, pagination, error handling beyond 403, or how the search interacts with other geographic tools. For a search tool, these gaps reduce completeness.

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 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), and the description does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'limit' beyond their names. The description mentions the underlying API but adds no parameter-specific context, relying entirely on schema property names.

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 clearly states the tool searches the National Register of Geographic Names (PRNG) and lists example feature types (mountains, rivers, settlements). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling geocoding and OSM search tools.

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 mentions that the tool is best-effort and may fail with HTTP 403, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternative search/geocode tools like geocode_gugik_prg or osm_overpass_query. Usage context is implied but not definitive.

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