pvsyst_resolve_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares the operation read-only, explains that no candidate is auto-selected, notes the selection_required flag behavior, and confirms nothing is written or downloaded.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful constraints, but it slightly repeats the non-selection behavior in the first and last sentences. It remains efficient overall.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers return fields (location_id, coordinates, ISO country code, IANA zone, selection_required), validation rules, and side-effect boundaries. That is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters. It constrains query to 2..100 characters of a place name and country_code to an uppercase ISO alpha-2 code when supplied.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: resolve a place name into provider geocoding candidates without selecting one. The explicit 'without selecting one' and 'no weather is downloaded or written' distinguish it from sibling weather and site-creation tools.

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 frames this as a candidate-lookup step that does not commit a location, which helps an agent know when to use it before a selection step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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