构建 AI 位置上下文

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it combines multiple APIs (place parsing, reverse geocode, nearby POI) and outputs 'traceable location facts', but does not detail what that entails beyond the existing annotation profile.

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 sentence with a semicolon, efficiently conveying purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, though a slightly more structured presentation could enhance readability without adding length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (combining multiple operations with 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and requirement to integrate with sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain when each sub-operation activates (e.g., query triggers place parsing, location triggers reverse geocode), nor the role of other parameters. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description lacks sufficient context for reliable agent decision-making.

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 25%, and the description only addresses the constraint that 'query or location at least one'. Other parameters like city, radius, nearby_limit, nearby_keywords, coordinate_source, and coordinate_system are left unexplained. The schema provides structure but the description adds little semantic value.

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 explicitly states the tool combines place parsing, reverse geocoding, and nearby POI to generate traceable location facts for AI. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., amap_resolve_location, amap_reverse_geocode, amap_search_nearby) by being a composite function. The constraint 'query or location at least one' adds specificity.

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 a key constraint (query or location required) but does not explicitly guide when to use this composite tool versus the individual sibling tools. No clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, only implicit differentiation through the tool's blended nature.

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