search_geo_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a significant behavioral trait: the data comes from a locally cached file (30-day cache) rather than a live query API, which affects freshness. It also states the return value (location IDs). While it does not cover rate limits or error handling, for a simple search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The primary action and the key caching trait are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, data source, and return value. It does not explicitly mention result limits or error conditions, but these are less critical for a simple lookup. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has no description for the single 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies the query is a location name via 'by name', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it lacks format details or examples, and only minimally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('targetable/excludable locations'), and clarifies it returns location IDs for geo write tools. This clearly distinguishes it from geo write tools like exclude_geo_target and remove_geo_target. It is not a tautology and provides a concrete function.

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 description indicates the tool is a prerequisite for geo write tools ('Returns location ids for geo write tools'), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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