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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral value by explaining fuzzy matching with tildes/aliases/erratas, stable identifier output, and the ambiguous-response workflow. 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?

Two focused sentences with the core conversion behavior front-loaded, followed immediately by workflow guidance. Every clause earns its place; no filler or duplication of schema fields.

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 two-parameter, read-only resolver with full schema coverage, the description covers the necessary input semantics, the disambiguation action, and the downstream relationship to get_current_state. It does not describe a no-match or error case, but the open-world annotation and ambiguous handling cover the main decision point.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query and type. The description reinforces fuzzy-name semantics and the supported entity types, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond the 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?

States a specific conversion task: user-spoken name (including tildes, aliases, typos) to stable `entityId` for four Alicante entity categories. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_place, search_alicante, or find_transit_stop; it only relates itself to get_current_state.

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 clear usage context: it is the first step before get_current_state, and instructs the agent to ask the user when the response marks ambiguous. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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