Resolve a location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are candidates with coordinates and place IDs, which is modest value. It says nothing about result ordering, ambiguity handling, or the limit behavior beyond the schema default.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and usage following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply purpose and routing context, which it does. The main remaining gap is disambiguation from the closely related autocomplete and search siblings, which an agent facing nine peer tools would benefit from.

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 every parameter including region, language, and limit is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantics detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a free-form location string into candidate Google places with coordinates and place IDs.' That is precise about inputs and outputs. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling goplaces_autocomplete, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Use before nearby searches or directions when you need structured candidates' gives clear context for when this tool fits. It names downstream tools it feeds but does not state when NOT to use it or how it differs from goplaces_autocomplete/goplaces_search, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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