find_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose and rationale but does not disclose behavior such as fuzzy matching, multiple possible results, no-match behavior, language sensitivity, or how tax_year affects the resolution. The agent is left to infer these from the schema and output schema.

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 filler. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds a concise justification for why this lookup matters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and why it is needed. It is slightly incomplete only because it lacks explicit usage boundaries relative to sibling location-related tools, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful domain context about why query resolves to a tax_location_id, but it does not add meaning for limit, language, or tax_year beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for schema-supported parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and names the exact resource: a place name or postal code to an ESTV tax location id. It also gives the domain rationale for why this id matters, which clearly distinguishes it from calculation-focused sibling tools like calculate_tax and compare_locations.

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 clearly implies this is a prerequisite step for calculations by explaining that every calculation is anchored on a tax_location_id. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as find_cheapest_nearby or compare_locations, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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