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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the geocoder is self-hosted over OSM with no external service, results are ranked by relevance, and an empty list is returned when nothing matches. It does not discuss rate limits or ambiguity handling, keeping it below 5.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanism, then return shape, then usage. Every clause carries information. The single long opening sentence is slightly heavy but not padded.

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 compensates by sketching the return shape ({candidates: [{name, lat, lng, kind, country, ...}]}) and the empty-result case. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the 'limit' parameter remains unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'query' is free-text and gives examples of accepted place kinds (city, address, POI), which is useful. However, the 'limit' parameter (1-20) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a free-text place (city, address or POI) to coordinate candidates', and names the underlying mechanism (self-hosted PostGIS over OSM). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_trip, which it explicitly references as a downstream consumer.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: 'Use to turn a place name into coordinates before create_trip.' That tells the agent when to reach for it and what it feeds into. It does not name an alternative geocoder 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.