resolve_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state dependency on the 'municipio activo' (implying set_ayuntamiento must run first) and that resolution is against the official GECOR callejero, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not say what is returned, how ambiguous street matches are handled, or what happens when coordinates fall outside the municipality.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the two input modes trailing. No filler, though the purpose and the mode list are packed into one clause with no visual separation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description arguably should say what a resolved location looks like (canonical street, ID, coordinates). It also omits what happens with no required parameters supplied and whether the active municipality is a hard prerequisite. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-param resolver with no annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents lat, lng and street_name with examples. The description's only added semantics is that coordinates and street search are alternative modes rather than a combined query, which is genuine but modest value on top of 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?

States a specific verb pair (valida y resuelve) and resource (una ubicación), plus the scope (municipio activo) and the two accepted input modes. An agent can tell it apart from the siblings (whoami, list_avisos, create_aviso_from_photo) without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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 when the tool applies by naming two entry paths (GPS coordinates or street lookup in the callejero), which is useful routing information. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that an active municipality must first be set), and no error/ambiguity handling.

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