Locate a GPS point

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: street address resolution is limited to covered areas, and the returned ids are intended as filters for other tools.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the result and then the usage hint. It is tight and waste-free, though the opening sentence is a fragment whose missing verb slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 does the work of describing what comes back (city, neighbourhood, street address, city id, district id) and its coverage limit. For a two-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only the handling of points outside covered areas or outside Iran is left unspecified.

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 both lat/lon carry bounds plus worked examples, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format or edge-case detail about the coordinates beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description names the exact resource produced (city, neighbourhood, street address) for a GPS input, which is a specific and recognizable reverse-geocoding operation. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action ('locate') must be inferred from the name, but the output is unambiguous.

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?

It states what the result is for ('Gives the city id and district id to use as filters') and explicitly chains to the next tool ('Next: dv_nearby for ads around the point'). No exclusions or when-not conditions are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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