解析真实地点

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it resolves to real POI/GCJ-02 coordinates, sorts candidates based on city and optional current location, and explicitly states it does not pretend to be device GPS. No contradiction with 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 a single, dense Chinese sentence that covers purpose, behavior, and a constraint without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and proceeds to additional details.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return format. It covers purpose, sorting behavior, and the important constraint about not impersonating GPS. However, it does not explicitly mention that multiple candidates are returned or that the coordinates are GCJ-02, though these are implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the complexity.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds significant context for the 'current_location' parameter (used for distance sorting, not as device location). It does not detail other parameters beyond what the schema provides, but the high coverage mitigates the need for more.

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 clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'location name/address to Amap real POI/GCJ-02 coordinates'. It also specifies key behaviors: combining city and optional current location for sorting, and explicitly says it does not impersonate device GPS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like amap_reverse_geocode and amap_locate_ip.

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 context by mentioning city and optional current location for sorting, and includes a caveat that it does not impersonate device GPS. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as amap_search_nearby or amap_build_location_context to guide when to use them instead.

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