Resolve AllTrails location

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the returned id is an Algolia search id and is NOT accepted by the trail-listing tools. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, which the limit param partly implies.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape, then adds the disambiguation use case and the critical id caveat as a compact NOTE. No redundant or filler sentences.

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 carries the return contract (kind, coordinates, URL slug, disambiguation label) and warns about the misleading id field. That covers everything an agent needs to call it and correctly consume the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, kinds, and limit are fully documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description restates the kinds set but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (resolve a place name to AllTrails location records) with the returned fields enumerated and the place kinds named. It clearly separates itself from alltrails_search, which handles trails rather than place resolution.

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?

States when it is useful (disambiguating which 'Oregon', fetching coordinates/slug) and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for trail lookup ('feed the resolved name back into alltrails_search'). Both the when and the alternative are named.

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