resolve_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that input is resolved to coordinates, but omits potential failure modes, output format details, whether network calls are involved, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure beyond the core function.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides examples without any extraneous wording. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and input flexibility. It lacks explicit usage guidelines and behavioral details, but these are secondary given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 simply defines 'address' as a string with no description. The tool description adds substantial meaning by clearly stating the parameter can be either a human-readable address or a 'lat,lon' pair, with a concrete example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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 states a specific verb 'Resolves' with a clear resource ('an address ... or 'lat,lon'') and the outcome ('to coordinates'). Concrete examples ('Warszawa, Marszałkowska 98') and the explicit 'lat,lon' format make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools that list providers, search venues, search items, or get venue menus.

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 implies the usage scenario by showing acceptable input formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it does not say whether to use this before search_venues or if you already have coordinates to use elsewhere. This is adequate but lacks clear guidance.

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