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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context by instructing the agent to ask the user when several places match, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the primary use case and adds the disambiguation instruction in a natural, compact way.

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 read-only autocomplete tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the core workflow: resolve to canonical ID and ask on ambiguous matches. It does not address the zero-match case, but the output schema and annotations carry enough of the remaining context.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It only implies the meaning of q through 'city, municipality or neighborhood' and says nothing about limit or countryCode, even though those affect results.

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 task: resolving a city, municipality, or neighborhood to its canonical ID before searching. It clearly distinguishes itself from the property-search siblings by positioning this tool as a preparatory lookup step rather than a search operation.

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 phrase 'Use this when resolving... before searching' gives a clear triggering context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but the 'before searching' framing effectively separates it from the property search tools.

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