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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that multiple candidates may come back ('candidate suggestions'); it says nothing about ambiguity handling, failure when no match is found, or ranking of candidates.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps slightly under-specified for the space available, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 4 well-documented params and full annotation coverage, the essentials are present, and no output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. Still, the relationship between text and the optional city hints—the one thing most likely to trip an agent—is left unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (text, city, city_slug, candidate_limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how the city hints interact with the free text, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'resolve a location string into a city and area with candidate suggestions'. Clear what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_by_location or list_cities, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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 use case is implied by 'user-provided location text' resolving to city/area, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Given the sibling set contains search_by_location, list_areas, and list_cities, an explicit routing rule was warranted and is absent.

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