Search

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context by stating the HTTP method, token types, and required scope, but it does not disclose pagination or response behavior beyond what the schema defaults imply.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the resource, endpoint, HTTP method, token types, and required scope in one efficient line. Every piece of information earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what the search returns or how the optional parameters like email and companyId affect results. An agent can infer it lists matching locations, but the missing return-value and filter semantics leave an important gap.

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 80%, so the schema already documents skip, limit, order, and companyId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it also does not need to compensate for missing schema info, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('Sub-Account (Formerly Location)') and provides a concrete endpoint, making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not elaborate on exact search fields, but the resource is unambiguous and distinguishable from the many get_ tools in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as locations_get_location or other search endpoints. The only extra context is token and scope information, which is authentication info rather than usage direction.

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