alltrails_resolve_location

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that the returned id is an Algolia search id and is not the id used by trail-listing tools, which is important behavioral context. It also lists the fields returned. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no superfluous information and the important note about the id is placed at the end, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing the returned fields (kind, coordinates, URL slug, disambiguation label) and mentions the id's nature. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating that the result is a list of location records, but overall it is complete enough for a tool with three parameters and clear constraints.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra value by providing example queries ('portland oregon', 'zion') and clarifying the purpose of the query parameter. It also explains the default behavior for kinds and limit implicitly. This goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool resolves a place name to AllTrails location records, listing the types (country/state/city/area/poi) and the returned fields (kind, coordinates, URL slug, disambiguation label). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling alltrails_search by noting the returned id is not for trail-listing tools and directing users to alltrails_search for that purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, such as pinning down ambiguous place names like 'Oregon' or obtaining coordinates/slugs. It also includes a crucial note about the returned id not being suitable for trail-listing tools and instructs users to feed the resolved name into alltrails_search for finding trails, effectively indicating both when to use and when not to use this tool.

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