search_places

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that searches must be scoped for performance and returns compact summaries, not full geometry. For a read-only search, this is sufficient behavioral context.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads purpose and constraints. It is relatively concise, with every sentence contributing value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main use case, scoping requirements, filtering, and return format. It does not need to repeat parameter details already in schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters (country OR lat+lng+radius) and explaining the rationale for scoping, as well as referencing list_place_categories for category values.

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 searches for places (points of interest/businesses) in Overture Maps data. It distinguishes from siblings like find_buildings and list_place_categories by focusing on POI search and referencing sibling tools for category discovery.

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?

Explicitly states that the search must be scoped with either a country or lat+lng+radius to keep it fast and cheap. Mentions using list_place_categories for valid categories, but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like search_divisions.

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