enrich_location

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that NUTS3 applies only to EU locations and details return fields, but does not mention mutation safety, rate limits, error handling, or coordinate validity. A read-only implication is present but not explicit.

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?

Description is structured with a one-line summary, args section, and bullet-pointed returns. It is fairly concise, though the returns list is detailed. Front-loads the purpose well. Could be slightly more terse.

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 2 simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers all return fields (nuts3_id, nuts3_name, country, water stress scores with scoring scale, nearest facility). It addresses geographic limitation (EU only) and proximity threshold (5 km). No gaps for intended use case.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters ('latitude in decimal degrees', 'longitude in decimal degrees'), adding units and context beyond the schema's bare type definitions. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get administrative region and water risk context for a coordinate.' It specifies exact outputs (NUTS3, WRI scores, proximity facility) and distinguishes from siblings like geocode and water_risk by combining these into a single enrichment.

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?

Description mentions 'useful for site screening and CSRD/ESRS preliminary assessment' but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Among sibling tools like geocode or find_facilities, there is no guidance on choosing enrich_location over them.

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