resolve_birth_coordinates

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the server first runs checks, results must be verified with verify_calculation_claims and reverified after correcting contradicted facts, and psychological interpretations are out of scope. The description also discloses that timezone handling is deferred rather than resolved here.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the later sentences carry real value (workflow ordering, truncation semantics). Some of the detail_level/include prose duplicates the schema descriptions instead of adding to them.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned fields (location_id, timezone) and the schema's include list enumerates the selectable fields, so an agent knows what the response contains and how to continue. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 50%, and the free-text description compensates by explaining that detail_level=summary previews object/nested rows (up to five), keeps complete scalar lists, marks truncation, and that include selects top-level content fields. That adds some meaning beyond the schema, though it largely restates the property descriptions and says little about latitude/longitude ranges or validation.

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 resource: converts WGS84 decimal latitude/longitude into a reusable location_id and IANA timezone. This clearly separates it from the city-based sibling search_birthplace.

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 says to use it 'when the user gives coordinates instead of a city' (implying the city-based alternative), and says to pass the resulting location_id to natal, timing, relationship, or chart tools. It also notes that DST offset is resolved later from the birth date and local time, not here.

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