Resolve a city or postal code to coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful auth context ('no Etix account required') and clarifies the output includes normalized city/state, going beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple read-only geocode lookup.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second explains its intended use, and the third covers access traits. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 covers return values (coordinates and normalized city/state) at a practical level. The main gap is the lack of a concrete response shape or error behavior, but for a simple geocoding lookup the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly and understand its 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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'country' already documented with examples and defaults. The description essentially restates the same parameter semantics (city/postal code, coordinates) without adding new meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resolve'), a precise resource ('a city name or postal code'), and a concrete output (coordinates plus normalized city/state). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like etix_search and etix_get_event by framing this as a geolocation building block rather than an event or venue lookup.

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 gives clear usage context: it is useful as a building block for location-based event browsing. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'building block' framing tells an agent when this tool fits in a multi-step workflow.

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