Cerca un luogo per nome

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that the tool returns multiple candidates and tells the agent to check with the user if ambiguous, which is valuable decision-making context. It does not disclose what happens with no results or the coordinate format, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core conversion and scope; the second sentence gives usage guidance and ambiguity handling. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to handle ambiguous results. The output schema covers return values, and annotations handle safety and open-world aspects. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance for when to prefer overlapping siblings like cerca_ricoveri, but the default use case is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for place-name queries.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limite' parameter. The phrase 'Restituisce piu' candidati' hints at the effect of 'limite' but does not explicitly state that it caps the number of results. The description also does not directly add meaning to 'nome' beyond its role as a toponym, which is already implied by the schema's example.

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 tool's function (converts a toponym into coordinates) and enumerates the place types covered (rifugi, cime, valichi, paesi, frazioni). This differentiates it from sibling tools like cerca_sentieri (trails) and coordinate-based tools, while also being distinct from the more specific cerca_ricoveri.

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 provides a concrete trigger condition: use when the user names a place rather than providing coordinates. It also instructs asking for confirmation when results are ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for overlapping categories (e.g., cerca_ricoveri for shelters), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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