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 mentions the external dependency on OpenStreetMap Nominatim (a useful behavioral clue about external API calls/network requirements), but it doesn't disclose that results are potentially non-deterministic, that it returns multiple candidates with confidence ratings to disambiguate, or address rate limits inherent to using a public service.

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?

A single, grammatically complete sentence that front-loads the purpose (Geocode) before the resource, with no filler words. Every element — verb, target, output type, and backend service — earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description is reasonably complete for its complexity. However, with no output schema describing the response shape and only 0% schema coverage of parameters, the description could add more context about what 'candidate coordinates' means as a return and how ranking works among candidates, which directly affects how the agent interprets results.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description names the primary input ('place name' maps to 'query'), and the 'limit' parameter has a default and bounds in the schema. However, the description doesn't explain how 'limit' affects candidate selection or what distinguishes one candidate from another, leaving partial meaning uncovered.

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 ('Geocode') targeting a specific resource ('place name') with a defined output ('candidate coordinates') and a named implementation source ('OpenStreetMap Nominatim'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plan_route or get_weather by focusing solely on location resolution/geocoding.

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 this is the geocoding tool among astronomy/weather/planning siblings, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context that it produces 'candidate coordinates' is useful for downstream tools but no when-to-use guidance is given.

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