resolve_location

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses use of OpenStreetMap Nominatim, best-effort nature, relative confidence score, candidate echoing for sanity-check, and Eircode limitations. Does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects, but the nature of geocoding implies read-only. Minor omission prevents a 5.

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?

Description is concise (~120 words) and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral details. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and no siblings, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, limitations, confidence score, coordinate system, and candidate format. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that candidates echo full resolved name for sanity-check, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema are already quite clear, so the addition is modest.

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 it resolves free-text Irish addresses/place names to WGS84 coordinates, returning ranked candidates. The verb 'resolve' and specific resource are explicit, and the description distinguishes it as a first step before other tools, though no sibling tools are listed.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: when user gives an address/place name in Ireland, before other gaff-check tools. Also tells when not to use: if exact lat/lng known. Provides caveats about rural addresses, new estates, and Eircode limitations, offering guidance on alternative actions.

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