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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it returns up to 5 candidates, includes place_id/address/type hint, and calls out that include_coords triggers an extra API call only when needed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and includes concrete examples ('CDG', 'Le Bristol', 'Gare du Nord'), while covering usage guidance, output shape, and option behavior without wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (up to 5 candidates with place_id, address, type hint, optional coordinates) and the optional coords behavior. It lacks edge-case handling like no-match results, but for this tool's scope it is substantially complete.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema with examples and default behavior. The description reinforces the query format and the extra-API-call implication of include_coords, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('free-text location... to a canonical address + coordinates'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like resolve_flight and resolve_train by focusing on geocoding for bookings. It explicitly lists concrete inputs (city, airport, hotel, station, full address) and outputs, making its purpose 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?

It explicitly advises 'Use this BEFORE get_quote when the customer gives a fuzzy pickup/drop-off', which provides clear situational guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with resolve_flight/resolve_train, but the tool names and context make those distinctions implicit, so it falls just 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.