resolve_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (centroid plus bounding box) and the failure mode (found=False when the place cannot be resolved). It omits potential ambiguity or coordinate system details, but this is adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then adding an illustrative example, the concrete output format, downstream use, and the failure case. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it tells the agent what to pass, what will come back, what the failure signal is, and how the result connects to a sibling tool. No critical context is missing.

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 provides only a 'name' string with no description, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' is a natural-language place name and provides concrete examples. It does not over-specify format, which is appropriate for free-form place names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: resolving a place name to a centroid and bounding box. It gives concrete examples ('Shillong', 'Loktak Lake') and clearly distinguishes this geocoding-style tool from sibling data-management/search 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?

It clearly states the intended downstream usage: the bounding box can be used as the area of interest for search_scenes. This gives an agent strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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