Search a place on the map

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (coordinates plus bounding box), calling itself an autocomplete service, and noting that Persian text works best. Error/empty-result behavior is not covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the function and immediately followed by the canonical follow-up tools. No filler or redundancy.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned values (lat/lon and bounding box) and how to use them. What it omits is failure/ambiguity handling for unrealized queries, which matters for geocoding but is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the expected input nature (landmark or street name) and the query-language preference ('Persian text works best'), which the schema does not express.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Map autocomplete: turn a landmark or street name into coordinates and a bounding box.' It also names the output artifacts, which differentiates it from generic search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby-sounding siblings such as dv_suggest or dv_parse_query.

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?

Guidance is limited to downstream consumption: 'Use the returned lat/lon with dv_nearby ... or dv_locate.' That implies this is the geocoding entry point, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over dv_suggest/dv_place_mapping, and no exclusion conditions.

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