send_location

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a write/action operation ('Send'). It doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the location renders as an interactive map in Telegram, or any rate-limiting/auth specifics, but for a simple send action the disclosure is minimally adequate.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys the core action without waste. It could add value with sibling differentiation, but as written it is efficient. Slightly more context could elevate it further without bloating.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. For a straightforward 4-param send tool, the description plus full schema coverage is largely sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on appropriate usage context or edge cases (e.g., horizontal_accuracy constraints), so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (chat_id, latitude, longitude, horizontal_accuracy are all individually described). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Send a geographic location to a Telegram chat'). It differentiates from send_message/send_photo/send_document siblings by specifying the geographic-location payload. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or highlight that this is the location-specific option among the send_* 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The agent must infer that it's for locations specifically. No exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., does the chat need to accept locations, any chat type limitations) are provided.

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