search_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It names the external backend (Nominatim) and implies a read-only search operation, which adds some context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as rate limits, network dependence, or approximate result behavior.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical use-case earns its place by clarifying when to invoke the tool.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what a result looks like (e.g., matched place names, coordinates), which an agent might need to properly consume the response.

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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' already have descriptive text and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline score of 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 states a specific action ('Search locations'), identifies the resource ('via Nominatim'), and adds the intended use case ('for origin/destination lookup'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools plan_trip and hello_tool.

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 phrase 'use for origin/destination lookup' gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is enough to guide an agent away from the unrelated siblings.

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