Look Up Search Locations

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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: result count cap, ordering ('most populous first'), per-item field list with meaning of each, and the cost signal ('Free'). Annotations already cover read-only safety, and the description adds substantive context beyond them.

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?

A single dense sentence-package that front-loads purpose, then returns, then matching semantics, then cost and docs link. Every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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?

For a 2-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, result shape, ordering, field meanings, matching rules and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 goes further by explaining that matching is on English name fragments ('e.g. petersburg') and by clarifying canonical_name is the value the agent should pass onward. It doesn't restate the 1-10 limit bounds, but the schema already does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up names for the location parameter') and explicitly ties it to sibling webscraping_ai_serp, so an agent knows this is the location-discovery companion to the SERP tool. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the output unmistakable.

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 names the sibling tool whose parameter it feeds and the workflow context, plus a real limitation ('Matches English names'), which effectively tells the agent when this will and won't work. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative rule, so not a full 5.

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