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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the output artifact is canonical slugs and the tool is a mandatory prerequisite for other tools. The remaining gap is match semantics — it never says whether free-text resolution can return multiple candidates or what happens on no match, which matters for a resolver.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the dependency constraint placed after the purpose statement so the agent gets the what and the why-immediately in order.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and ordering adequately. It stops short of describing ambiguity/no-match handling, which is the one thing an agent would need to recover from a poor query.

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 both the query and kind parameters are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates the domain by naming community/area/building but adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') plus a precisely bounded resource ('free-text Dubai location name ... to canonical slugs'), with the entity kinds enumerated. It also implicitly differentiates from all siblings by declaring that they consume the slugs this tool returns.

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 sequencing rule: 'Always call this first when the user names a place; other tools take the returned slugs.' This tells the agent both when to use it and how it relates to the alternative tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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