describe_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: gazetteer facts are nearest-point not boundary lookups, results can differ near borders, the admin point may be a Regierungsbezirk rather than a Land, and OpenStreetMap ODbL 1.0 attribution must be shown. These are obligations and caveats the structured fields cannot convey.

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-loads the core definition and the exclusion before the caveats, so the most decision-relevant content comes first. It is dense and somewhat run-on in the middle clauses, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return, and it does so explicitly by listing the five fact types and their per-fact distances. Combined with the attribution requirement and boundary caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it and present results correctly.

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 language parameter already carries a very detailed schema description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The prose adds no syntax or format guidance for lat/lon or language beyond what the schema states.

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 opening 'Turns a coordinate into words' states a precise verb+resource, and the description enumerates what comes back (address, settlement, Kreis, administrative area, motorway junction with distances). It explicitly distinguishes itself from find_place, find_poi and find_address, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Both the trigger ('Use when you already HAVE a lat/lon') and the anti-trigger ('Do NOT use to look up a place or address BY NAME') are stated, and the three alternative siblings are named by name. This is the textbook when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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