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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it returns OSM IDs rather than stop IDs, mis-resolves station names to districts or cities, ignores the lang parameter, and warns against geographic hallucination. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense and long, but well structured with bold markers, concrete examples, and a clear lead sentence. It earns its length by resolving high-stakes sibling ambiguity, though a few examples could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (coordinates and OSM IDs), what failure modes look like, how to route non-matching cases, and where to find deeper guidance via get_usage_guide. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 the baseline is 3. The description restates that name is required and that lang is optional and ignored, but the schema already documents these properties in similar detail. The format parameter is not mentioned in the description, but it is adequately covered by 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?

The description states the exact operation in the first sentence: resolving a city, region, or district name into coordinates and OSM IDs, and frames it as the first step for locating an area. It then explicitly excludes stops, addresses, and POIs, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling geolocation tools without inspecting their schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete query examples, and clearly says when not to use it: stop names containing Bahnhof/Hbf/Bf belong to the Ortsauflösung, and addresses/POIs/trip endpoints are also excluded. It names concrete alternatives: reverse_geocode for coordinate-to-name and nearby for listing surroundings.

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