Geocode a Helsinki place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by describing the output: 'Returns up to 10 candidates with Finnish and Swedish names, coordinates, and a confidence score.' However, it doesn't mention error cases or ambiguous query behavior, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose, then state the output, then give usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple 2-parameter geocoding tool, the description covers purpose, output format, and usage context relative to siblings. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit summary of returned fields.

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% for both parameters, so the description leverages the schema's descriptions. It reinforces that query accepts 'address, place, or landmark' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Look up coordinates for an address, place, or landmark in the Greater Helsinki area.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_journey and stop_departures.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this before plan_journey when you only have a place name.' This names the alternative tool and provides a clear when-to-use directive, which is exactly what agents need.

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