Find place codes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds substantial domain-specific behavior: output ID shapes per mode, IATA versus city codes, railroad station IDs, 8-digit bus/taxi city IDs, and hotel slug conventions. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by mode with specific examples. Despite its density, every sentence provides useful information for invoking the tool correctly. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the complexity of five modes and differing ID formats, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. Annotations, full schema descriptions, and an output schema are present, so the description need not explain return structure or safety. It covers mode-specific semantics and next steps well.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the mode parameter by explaining what each mode returns and giving examples, though it does not add much for limit and query beyond the schema examples. This justifies a score above baseline but not perfect.

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 states a specific verb and resource: turning a place name into the code a search takes. It clearly distinguishes this lookup/resolution tool from sibling search tools such as mb_search_flights and mb_search_hotels. The mode-specific breakdown further clarifies what the tool produces.

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 gives clear context and mode-specific routing, including Next tools to use after obtaining codes. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or what alternative exists if the code is already known. Still, the mapping from mode to downstream search tool is strong guidance.

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