send_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the output renders as a location card that opens the map app. It says nothing about permissions, what happens when the optional chat_id is omitted, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a send operation.

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 key statement is front-loaded in a single short sentence with no filler. The bilingual restatement doubles the length for localization purposes, which is a reasonable trade-off but slightly dilutes density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a send tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage the description should clarify chat_id optionality and coordinate expectations. Those aspects are entirely absent.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description adds no meaning for latitude, longitude, or chat_id — no coordinate format/precision, no range constraints, no default-chat semantics. Only the parameter names themselves convey intent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Send a geographic location card") and adds the observable effect ("opens directly in the map app"), which separates it from send_text_message and send_contact. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase "opens directly in the map app" implies the appropriate scenario (sharing a navigable point rather than a text address), but the agent must infer that.

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