resolve_operational_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: diacritics are ignored, and an empty list is a valid 'not found' result. However, it does not disclose response structure, sorting, or any other side effects. Given the absence of annotations, it provides some value but not comprehensive coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then immediately gives usage context ('Call this first') and a critical edge-case behavior. Every sentence 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 name-resolution tool with an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the core purpose, usage flow, and key edge case. It does not detail how to handle multiple matches, but that is likely covered by the output schema and is not a critical omission for correct invocation.

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 itself contains detailed descriptions for all properties (query, limit, types, countries), including the diacritics normalization. The description echoes 'by name' and 'diacritics ignored' but adds nothing materially new beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, 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 verb ('Find'), resource ('operational points'), and specifics ('by name in Poland or Czechia'). It also explicitly connects to the sibling tool find_route by stating it produces an op_id for that purpose, distinguishing it from route planning and other tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first' to resolve a place name to an op_id for find_route, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also clarifies that an empty candidate list is a valid outcome, not an error. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to other alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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