lyon_resolve_place

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool resolves places (non-destructive) and does not calculate routes. It could mention that it returns place IDs or coordinates, but the existence of an output schema partially mitigates this. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, 45 words, with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by usage advice and a negative constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema description, the description should provide more detail on how to use parameters like 'query' and 'types'. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter guidance. The description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description mentions place types (address, stop, station, neighborhood, personal place) but does not link to the 'types' parameter, nor does it explain 'query', 'near', or 'limit'. The agent gains little understanding of how to set parameters beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it resolves addresses, TCL stops, Vélo'v stations, neighborhoods, and personal places in Lyon. It distinguishes from siblings by advising usage before other tools when a place is ambiguous and clarifying that it does not calculate itineraries.

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 description provides clear guidance: 'Use this tool before others when a place is ambiguous' and explicitly states what it does not do ('Ne calcule pas d'itinéraire'). No further guidance needed.

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