get_v1_location_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets locations' but does not explain whether it is read-only, the nature of the search (fuzzy or exact), expected response format, or any rate limits or prerequisites. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 very short (two lines of actual content), which is efficient but leaves out critical information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. A well-structured description would front-load the key action but still provide necessary details.

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 (search tool with many siblings, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., location objects with fields like name, address, etc.), how many results, or any pagination or ordering. This lack of context hinders an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'lat and long' but does not clarify their format, valid ranges, or coordinate system. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 it retrieves locations using latitude and longitude, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_v1_location_by_id (which uses an ID) and get_v1_fbsearch_places (which likely uses text search). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other search tools, so it loses some points for not explicitly stating its unique use case.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for coordinate-based searches, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be better suited for other scenarios. Without usage context, an AI agent may struggle to select the correct tool.

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