resolve_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: no OAuth required, preserve candidate order, importance means prominence not confidence, viewbox is a preference not a boundary, empty candidates are a successful empty search, and provider failures are errors. This is excellent transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, auth, ordering, ambiguity handling, parameter semantics, location inference guardrails, and failure semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into caveats.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the remaining operational essentials: provider behavior, auth expectations, ambiguity handling, parameter caveats, and empty/error outcomes. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so for most parameters: countrycodes are explained as ISO alpha-2 filters, viewbox format and semantics are given, and language selects display names. It also clarifies output concepts like ambiguous and importance. Only 'limit' is left to the schema's default/max/min, which is fairly self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Resolve an address or named area into candidate coordinates using Nominatim.' This clearly defines what the tool does and signals that it is a geocoding/location-resolution tool, distinguishing it from OSM element search and validation siblings.

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 gives useful handling instructions, such as 'ambiguous=true means ask the user or use supplied context' and 'Never infer the user's location.' However, it never explicitly names alternatives like smart_geocode or search_osm_elements, so the agent must infer when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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