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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and tells the agent the candidate count, the returned fields (lat/lng plus location label), the backend service, cache/OSM behavior, and that the query is limited to a place name with no personal data. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a small tool.

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?

All sentences serve a purpose: purpose, candidate output, use-rule, and backend/privacy note. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, output shape, disambiguation behavior, and a usage rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The single parameter is already documented in the schema with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds accepted input categories (parks, trailheads, IATA or name) and the disambiguation intent, going modestly beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Turn a place name into coordinates' — and enumerates accepted place types. It also names build_trip_link as the consumer, which separates it from the sibling trip-link and kept-trip tools. The 'Reno' example clarifies that the tool does disambiguation, not just lookup.

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 explicitly positions this as 'the ONLY step that needs coordinates' and warns not to guess coordinates from memory, giving an unambiguous when-to-use rule. It names build_trip_link as the downstream tool and provides no misleading alternatives. This is stronger than a general context hint.

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