search_twitter_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the return format (names, types, location details), which is good, but it does not disclose limitations (e.g., result caps), error behavior, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the action, target, and return value without any wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With one parameter fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose and output. It could benefit from mentioning result limits or pagination, but overall it is complete for a simple 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?

The schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'query' ('Place name to search'). The tool description reinforces that the query is a place name, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's additional value is marginal.

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 action ('Search for'), the resource ('Twitter places'), and the search criterion ('by name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as search_twitter_tweets or search_twitter_users, and mentions the return value including types and location details, which is specific and helpful.

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 implies usage when needing place information for geolocated tweets, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_twitter_place_trends. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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