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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the upstream provider (OpenStreetMap Nominatim) and hedges that timezone_offset is only present 'where available', but it says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or error/empty-result behavior for a third-party geocoder.

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 one-liner followed by clearly labeled WHEN TO USE / WHAT IT DOES / RETURNS / NEXT sections — easy to scan. The RETURNS block partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is a small redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a necessity. The main remaining gap for a zero-annotation, third-party-backed tool is operational context (rate limits, failure modes), but the core call path is fully described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the meaning of 'query' through the resolve framing, but the 'limit' parameter (default 8) is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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) and resource (place name) with the concrete outputs (geo-coordinates, timezone). It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are all astrology calculations rather than geocoding.

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?

The WHEN TO USE block gives a precise triggering condition ('agent has a city or place name but needs latitude, longitude, and timezone offset') and the NEXT line routes the agent onward to calculate_birth_chart. It lacks any 'when not to use' clause, but no sibling competes for this job.

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