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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing ambiguity preference rules ('Barcelona' resolves to the municipality), the AMBIGUOUS_PLACE error with suggestions, and bare-name resolution behavior — genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though return format details are only sketched via one example.

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-loads the purpose and keeps every sentence on the disambiguation/dispatch topic, but the length and the dense parenthetical examples make it heavier than needed for a three-parameter lookup. Still, no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies an example return shape ({match, alternatives}), explains the error case, and covers naming conventions for both ES and US entities. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 adds real interpretation rules, showing that a name can be free text, an id, or a code, and demonstrating disambiguating forms like 'Washington County, Oregon' and 'provincia de Barcelona'. The `level` and `country` parameters are left entirely to the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ('turn a place name into the normalized entity') and enumerates the value returned (official codes INE, Idescat, NUTS, ISO, US FIPS, plus parent). This clearly separates it from get_place_profile, which returns profile data rather than identifier resolution.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when a name is ambiguous or you want to confirm which entity a number refers to') and when not to bother ('the other tools accept names directly, so this call is optional'). It also routes the agent to disambiguation syntax when a bare name is insufficient.

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