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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: diacritic-insensitive matching ('toolo' → 'Töölö'), the fact that shared neighbourhood names yield multiple results, and the null-population semantics for municipalities/regions which prevents a false 'empty place' inference. This is meaningful behavior an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and routing rule, then behavioral caveats. It runs long with several dense clauses (diacritics, multi-results, population year, null semantics), but each sentence earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining return shape and it does: results are codes, postal-area results carry an inhabitant count plus publication year, and population is null for non-postal grains. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 parameters are already documented. The description's mention of postal areas, municipalities, and regions loosely maps to the `kind` enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (resolve), resource (Finnish place name), and output (the code every other Suomiatlas tool takes), and enumerates the three grains it handles. An agent can immediately tell this is the name-to-code resolver, distinct from siblings like get_place_stats or compare_areas that consume codes.

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?

Explicit routing instruction: 'Call this first whenever the user names a place rather than a code.' It also gives handling guidance for the ambiguous case (several results is normal — present the choices) and when to quote population (quote the year with it).

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