Select location

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions checking serviceability and persisting valid headers, but it does not describe error handling (e.g., when serviceability fails), auth requirements, or side effects like session changes.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that packs all key information without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description explains the outcome but lacks details about the return value (no output schema). It does not cover the complete context for a tool that performs validation and persistence, leaving gaps about possible errors or success signals.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond that, only hinting that these come from glovo_search_locations. Since schema is already clear, baseline 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 clearly states the tool's specific purpose: resolving a public location suggestion, checking guest delivery serviceability, and persisting valid browsing location headers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like glovo_search_locations (which only suggests) and glovo_set_location (which may not include validation).

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 implies usage after glovo_search_locations by referencing its outputs, and it clarifies the validation and persistence steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like glovo_set_location for setting a location without validation.

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