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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains fuzzy matching (typos, accents, flexible spacing), abbreviation handling (st/saint, ft/fort, mt/mount), ranking logic (exact and prefix matches first), and that ambiguous addresses can return multiple 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies input handling and ranking, and the third warns about multiple results.

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 geocoding tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape ('candidate coordinates') and input behavior for the required parameter. The only gap is the unexplained optional `near` parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain both parameters. It thoroughly covers the `query` parameter's syntax and acceptable variations, but the optional `near` parameter (a nested object with lat/lng) is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('US address or place to candidate coordinates'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are job-search-related.

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 provides clear context: it resolves US addresses/places, accepts typos and abbreviations, and may return multiple candidates for ambiguous inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but no comparable sibling exists, so this is adequate.

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