search_geo_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions caching for access_token and returns a JSON string, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, safe, or idempotent. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed, but critical details like permission needs and side effects are missing.

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 concise and well-structured using Args/Returns format. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and each parameter is described efficiently without redundancy. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the return value, which is sufficient given the existence of an output schema. It lacks information about pagination or maximum limits, and could be more complete about authentication prerequisites, but overall is nearly complete for a straightforward search tool.

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 0%, so the description compensates well. It provides clear explanations for all four parameters: query with examples, access_token caching, location_types with all possible values, and limit with default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for geographic targeting locations, with examples like 'New York', 'California', 'Japan' and specific location types (country, region, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools (e.g., search_interests, search_behaviors) which may have overlapping purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_interests or search_behaviors. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent without decision support.

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