weather_search_places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'without changing settings' and adds genuinely new behavioral details: the GSI fallback for Japanese ward names and the instruction to check administrative regions when names are ambiguous. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes operational value: country scoping, ambiguity handling, and fallback behavior. There is minimal redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, country filtering, ambiguous-name handling, and a specific fallback. It does not mention the return format or explicitly route to sibling tools, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema provides only names, types, and a default for country_code, with no descriptions. The explanation adds meaning by clarifying that country_code selects the country and defaults to JP, and that place_name should be a real place name. It does not exhaustively explain all edge cases but compensates well for the sparse schema.

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'), a clear resource ('a real place name'), and the intended result ('geographic candidates'). It also explicitly notes 'without changing settings,' which distinguishes it from the location-management sibling tools. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 gives practical usage guidance: use country_code with JP as the default, check administrative regions for ambiguous names, and use GSI as a fallback for Japanese ward names. It implies this tool is for searching rather than changing settings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.