search_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses fuzzy matching, multi-language support, country filtering, and richer outputs (population, timezone, elevation, feature type, elevation category), plus examples of multiple matches. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is substantial.

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 long but organized into scannable sections with the core purpose front-loaded. Some redundancy exists between the Features list and the Returns section, but each section adds contextual value.

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?

Covers purpose, triggers, workflow, parameter details, and return structure in depth. An output schema is present, and the description still documents the returned dictionary fields. Because it doesn't mention the sibling search_location_swiss or error behavior, it stops short of complete, but it is more than sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides detailed semantics for every parameter: name examples, count range (1-100), language options, and country code examples. This exceeds what the bare schema types convey.

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: 'Searches for locations by name to get coordinates for weather queries.' The examples and features clarify it converts names to coordinates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_location_swiss tool, which would earn a 5.

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?

Includes a dedicated 'Use this tool when' section listing three concrete triggers (location name instead of coordinates, need coordinates for a city/mountain/landmark, discover locations in a country). Also provides a three-step workflow leading to get_weather/get_snow_conditions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a comparison to search_location_swiss.

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