search_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that multiple keywords trigger separate API calls with merging and deduplication, which is useful. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence defining the purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format with examples. It is concise but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrasing, though it remains effective.

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 tool has an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values; it adequately states that matching location codes are returned for use in filters. The parameter explanations are complete, and the usage guidance is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that keywords are one or more search terms with examples, country_code follows ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, and language_code controls display language with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 explicitly states it searches cities, regions, and provinces within a country by keywords, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cities and get_regions by noting it returns filtered codes for use in search_businesses filters, recommending its use over fetching full lists.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (to obtain location codes for filtering search_businesses) and advises against using full location lists instead. However, it does not explicitly mention cases where this tool should not be used or provide alternative sibling tools for specific scenarios.

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