alltrails_resolve_location

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, so the description needed to add behavioral nuance beyond that. It adds the critical caveat that the returned id is an Algolia search id, not the trail-listing id, and reveals what fields are returned (kind, coordinates, slug, disambiguation label). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not detail error cases or coordinate formatting.

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 compact and well-structured: the core function and outputs come first, followed by a practical use case, then a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and none are redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: location records with kind, coordinates, URL slug, and disambiguation label. It also covers the most important integration gotcha (the Algolia id) and directs the agent to the correct next step for trail lookup. The parameter behavior is already fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the disambiguation use case ('which Oregon') and by clarifying that query results are location records rather than trail records. This helps an agent understand query intent more deeply than the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a place name to AllTrails location records,' and enumerates the kinds of locations included (country/state/city/area/POI) plus returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from trail-listing tools by noting the returned id is not the id those tools accept. This is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like alltrails_search and alltrails_get_trail.

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 explicitly states when the tool is useful, such as disambiguating 'Oregon' or fetching coordinates/slug. It also gives a direct routing instruction: feed the resolved name back into alltrails_search to find trails. This is strong practical guidance that tells an agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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