Resolve a location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance ('Fast, no browser needed') and the behavior of returning multiple canonical names for ambiguous input. It doesn't cover edge cases like no-match, but the core behavior is well disclosed for a simple resolver.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage suggestion and example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is highly readable and efficient.

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 fully explains what the tool does and how to use it relative to siblings. It doesn't include the exact return format or error behavior, but for a simple resolver, the information given is sufficient. The example adds context for ambiguity handling.

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?

The schema provides a description for 'query' but not for 'max'. The tool description adds meaning by explaining query as partial/ambiguous location text and showing an example with multiple results, which implies max controls the result count. However, max's semantics are not explicitly explained, and with only 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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: turning partial/ambiguous location text into canonical REA suburb/region names with state and postcode. It uses a specific verb+resource and differentiates itself from the sibling search_listings and get_listing 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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before search_listings') and provides a concrete example ('bondi' returns multiple suburbs). It also mentions it's fast, giving a reason to prefer it for disambiguation, and names an alternative, making the usage context clear.

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