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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns canonical slugs and is the mandatory first step before sibling tools, which is meaningful beyond the 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the critical usage rule is delivered in the second sentence. Every word 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?

For a simple, read-only resolver, the description covers purpose, outputs, and usage sequencing. While there is no output schema and the description does not address ambiguity or empty-result behavior, the canonical-slug statement and strong usage rule make this adequately complete for an agent.

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%, with both 'query' and 'kind' already documented. The description adds the 'free-text' notion and clarifies that output feeds other tools, but it mostly restates the enum values from the schema rather than adding deep new parameter semantics.

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 Dubai location name ... to canonical slugs'), clearly distinguishing this lookup tool from the analytics siblings. It also states the exact role of the tool in the workflow, so an agent can identify it instantly.

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 instructs 'Always call this first when the user names a place' and explains that other tools depend on the returned slugs. This gives a strong, unambiguous usage rule and implies when not to use it (for analytics directly).

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