Resolve a place name to Hemnet location ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and enumerates returned fields, but it does not disclose ranking criteria, no-match behavior, or ambiguity handling; this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the action, and the return fields plus downstream usage are useful. The final 'Read-only.' is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint=true, so it is not completely waste-free.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states the input shape, names the returned fields, and explains how to consume the result. Since there is no output schema, explicitly listing location_id, full_name, and parent_full_name gives the agent enough to call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that query is a free-text place name and enumerating acceptable location levels (municipality, district, or area), which is more precise than the schema's bare 'Place name' label.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Look up Hemnet location ids') and scopes the input to free-text place names such as municipality, district, or area. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like hemnet_search_listings and hemnet_get_listing, which operate on listings rather than resolving location identifiers.

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?

It states the intended workflow by telling the agent to feed the returned location_id into hemnet_search_listings or hemnet_search_sold, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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