get_place_info

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

Annotations already carry readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only a limited behavioral cue: that this is a compatibility-oriented geocoder and that resolve_location is preferred for richer cases. It does not detail ambiguity handling, output behavior, or request constraints, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. It states the core identity first and then gives routing guidance, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with read-only annotations and an output schema present, much of the operational context is covered outside the description. However, parameter semantics and the exact limitations of the compatibility geocoder are left vague, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description never mentions place_name or its expected semantics. Although 'geocoder' and the property name hint that place_name is a place name, the low description coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the tool as a geocoder, so an agent can infer it resolves a place name into place information. The 'Compatibility' qualifier and the contrast with resolve_location help separate it from richer geocoding siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'Resolves a place name to...'.

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?

The description explicitly steers callers to resolve_location for typed candidates, language/country/viewbox preferences, and explicit ambiguity. It does not spell out the positive case for choosing get_place_info, but 'Compatibility geocoder' implies simple or legacy use, making the guidance clear though not exhaustive.

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