Find location

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are biased toward near_lat/near_long with a default of Tehran, and a successful lookup does not guarantee delivery-area coverage. It stops short of describing the response shape (single point vs. up to `limit` candidates), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, no padding, front-loaded with the core transformation and the sequencing rule. Each sentence carries a distinct fact: what it does, when to call it, how bias works, and the delivery-area caveat.

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 still conveys the essential return (lat/long) and the dependency and bias behaviors an agent needs. It does not explain that `limit` implies a ranked list of candidates or how those candidates are ordered, a modest omission for a tool with a default limit of 5.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the bias defaults to Tehran and callers should pass a city center (from tf_list_cities) to bias toward other cities. That clarifies the intent of near_lat/near_long beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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: place name or address into latitude/longitude. This inherently distinguishes it from the sibling tf_reverse_geocode, which does the opposite direction. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

Explicitly says 'Use first when the user gives an address' and explains the dependency ('every other tf_* tool needs lat/long'), which tells the agent when this tool must precede others. It also flags a false-success condition by pointing to tf_list_cities for delivery-area validation.

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