get_coordinates_from_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the schema. It does not mention that geocoding a name can return multiple matches (consistent with the default limit of 5), what happens on an unresolved or ambiguous query, or whether results are ranked.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one efficient sentence, but the trailing 'use this when...' clause largely duplicates it and earns little of its space. No structural problems otherwise.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should have clarified that multiple coordinate candidates may be returned and in what order.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'query' (with examples) and 'limit' (default 5). The description adds no syntax, disambiguation, or ranking details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (retrieve) plus the exact resource (latitude and longitude) and the accepted input (city or administrative area name). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling weather tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 second sentence ('Use this when you need coordinates for a place') gives an implied usage context, but it is essentially a restatement of the purpose. There are no when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no guidance on handling ambiguous place names.

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