Kviria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals beta status, the contiguous-US coverage area with explicit lat/lng bounds, the honest notFound/out_of_coverage behavior with free turns, the constraint to never invent distances or details, and the confirmation gating flow. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any schema could convey.

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 front-loads the core purpose effectively. It is dense and lengthy, mixing operational protocol with behavioral constraints, but every sentence carries operational value for a genuinely complex tool. Some redundancy exists (the intent field schema already states 'Send exactly one of transcript or intent' and the description repeats echo instructions), but the density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested oneOf unions, an output schema, and complex stateful flows (confirm gating, candidates echoing), the description is remarkably complete. It covers coverage boundaries, error behavior, free turns, phrase-from-facts-only constraints, and the confirmation on/off modes. It also references a full mapping rules URL for additional depth. Nothing essential 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, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the transcript/intent mutual exclusivity protocol, the mechanical binding of echoed candidates, the requirement that anchors be the user's real position ('Do not call with invented anchors'), and the pendingConfirm preservation rule. It also clarifies the confirmation parameter's human-in-the-loop behavior beyond its schema description.

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+resource: 'narrows a user's spoken reference down to exactly one place or address and returns its verified coordinate with an evidence trail.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's core function. Though no sibling tools exist to differentiate from, the purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Extensive when-to-use guidance is provided: call with raw message and anchor, and detailed protocols for 'confirm' vs 'candidates' flows. It explicitly tells agents when to ask the user 'is it {name} ({distanceM} m)?', how to echo candidates verbatim, and how to handle rejections. It also warns against invented anchors and specifies coverage handling.

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