Find location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that results carry province and city, but discloses no additional behavioral traits (rate limits, ambiguity handling, auth needs) beyond that.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core operation before the usage contexts. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents both parameters. The description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what the tool converts and why it would be called.

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%, so both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema, including the Persian-language example and the 1-20 bound. The description re-touches 'address or landmark' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific transformation with clear directionality: 'Turn an address or landmark into coordinates with its province and city.' This forward-geocoding direction is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tl_reverse_geocode, which does the opposite mapping.

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 gives two concrete use cases ('tell which city an address is in' and 'find the nearest branch') and even cross-references tl_store_info for the shipping dependency. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., tl_reverse_geocode) or stating when-not-to-use, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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