Resolve a city or postal code to coordinates

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world and idempotent semantics, but the description adds real value beyond them: the no-match behavior (found:false with a message) and that no Etix account is required. It does not discuss ambiguous multi-match handling, though that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted preamble. The final "Read-only, no Etix account required" partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, a small redundancy.

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-value burden and does reasonably well: it names the returned fields (lat/long, normalized city/state) and the failure shape (found:false + message). It could say more about how ambiguous or partial matches resolve, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so both 'query' (with its "City, ST" or postal code example) and 'country' (defaulting to USA) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same input forms without adding format or edge-case guidance beyond them, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb (resolve) and a concrete resource (city name or postal code → latitude/longitude plus normalized city/state). No sibling tool in the set (get_event, get_venue, healthcheck, search) does geocoding, so the scope is unmistakable without opening either schema.

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?

"Useful as a building block for location-based event browsing" implies a usage context but never states when to reach for this tool versus calling etix_search or etix_get_event directly, nor any exclusions. Implied usage only.

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