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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns candidate sets rather than guessing, widens quarter/village names to a parent, and caps precision at municipality-centre coordinates with no property-level accuracy. That precision caveat is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs before feeding results downstream.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the ambiguity and precision caveats; nothing is redundant. It is dense with useful information per sentence, though the final sentence compresses two distinct ideas (parent widening and coordinate precision) in a way that takes a re-read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on behavioral nuance instead. With only 3 parameters it covers the ambiguity and precision dimensions well; the remaining gap is guidance on query formats and whether multiple candidates mean the caller must choose.

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 only 33% (only `locale` is documented in the schema), so the description should compensate more than it does. It does add real meaning for `country` ('can narrow ambiguous names'), but says nothing about acceptable `query` formats (name vs alias vs official ID) despite that being the sole required parameter. Baseline 3 is the ceiling given the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (resolve) and resource (Grande Région names, translated aliases, official locality IDs), which tells an agent exactly what class of problem this tool solves. It is clearly a geocoding/entity-resolution tool, distinguishable from all listed siblings. It falls short of 5 only because 'Grande Région' is domain jargon that a general agent may not parse without prior knowledge.

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?

It gives implied usage context — 'Country can narrow ambiguous names' and 'Return candidates instead of guessing' signal that this is the disambiguation path rather than a point lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to alternatives (e.g., how this differs from search_for_sale or get_town_agencies, which also involve places).

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