Geocode place

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations don't carry: it discloses that multiple candidates are returned and lists their fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior (no match found) and any rate limiting, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the routing guidance are front-loaded in the first two lines, which is the right ordering. The trailing Args block largely restates the schema's defaults, so it is mildly redundant but still compact.

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 present, the description appropriately describes what comes back (candidate coordinate objects) and documents every parameter. It stops short of covering the no-results or error path, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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 0% and the schema titles are bare ('Query', 'Count', 'Language'), so the description carries the full burden. It assigns meaning to all three parameters (place name to search, max candidates default 5, result language from config), though the language semantics remain thin.

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 specific verb and resource ('Resolve a place name to candidate coordinates') and enumerates the returned fields (name, admin region, country, lat/lon, timezone). This clearly separates it from the sibling get_forecast, which consumes rather than produces coordinates.

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?

Names the sibling alternative explicitly and gives the selecting condition: 'Use it to disambiguate before get_forecast, or when a user names an ambiguous place.' The agent knows both the trigger and the downstream tool without opening any schema.

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