describe_location

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/no-open-world safety, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: attribution source (OpenStreetMap ODbL 1.0), the requirement to show the attribution line, and a caveat that administrative fields come from the containing municipality rather than the nearest Kreis point, with a border warning. It stops short of stating any rate limits or error behavior, but the provenance and licensing obligations are valuable disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and return content, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense and mildly repetitive ('this only goes coordinate to words' restates the opening), but no wasted padding.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the administrative-source caveat an agent needs to interpret them. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing needed to call or read this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains lat/lon WGS84 ranges and the language default/enum behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance of its own, so the 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?

States a specific verb and transformation ('turns a coordinate into words') and enumerates the return content: nearest address, settlement, motorway junction, Gemeinde/Kreis/Land, low-emission zone. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit positive trigger ('Use when you already HAVE a lat/lon') and explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use to look up a place or address BY NAME — that is find_place, find_poi or find_address'), naming the three alternatives. Routing is unambiguous.

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