where_is

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

Since there are no annotations, the description must bear the full burden. It provides excellent behavioral context by listing the rich data returned, including 'altitude, land use and hazard maps,' which informs the agent about the depth of the output beyond simple location names.

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 definition is a single, highly effective sentence that gets straight to the core functionality and scope without any extraneous detail.

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 the minimal input schema and lack of annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It informs the AI exactly what the tool does and what types of data the user will receive upon invocation.

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 input schema only defines 'lat' and 'lon' as basic numbers. The description significantly adds value by defining the semantic context of those parameters—that they are lookup points for detailed geographic and environmental analysis.

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 defines the function as coordinate resolution (finding parish, municipality, and district) based on the input coordinates. While highly specific, it does not explicitly contrast itself against every related sibling tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool implies usage when detailed geographic and environmental context (like land use and hazards) is required for a given point. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when *not* to use it, nor does it route the agent to alternatives like `municipality`.

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