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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying the output types (regions, hotels, coordinates), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential error behavior or fuzzy matching, but the read-only, idempotent nature is well-established.

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?

The description is a single, extremely concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 lookup tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus search_hotels, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to guide an agent in most cases.

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 'keyword' and 'user_key' already described in the schema. The tool description essentially repeats the keyword examples without adding new syntax or format details. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource (region, POI, landmark, mall, or hotel name to TourMind regions, hotels, or coordinates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_hotels by focusing on name-to-entity/coordinate resolution rather than general hotel search.

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 description implies usage for location name resolution but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_hotels. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The context hints at geocoding/lookup use cases but lacks direct guidance.

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