Resolve location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context that this resolves against three named external platforms, but says nothing about the returned shape, unresolved-name behavior, or normalization rules, so it remains thin beyond structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the purpose, then the routing note. Every sentence earns its place with no hedging or repetition.

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 single-param, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers what it does, why to use it, and the sibling overlap. Only the return semantics ('how a name is known' on three platforms) are left implicit, which a naming lookup call can reasonably tolerate.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's Persian/English examples mirror what the schema already states ('City or region name, Persian or English'), adding no syntax or validation detail beyond it.

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?

Specific verb (look up / resolve) plus a precise resource (a city/region name's canonical mapping) and explicit scope (Jabama, Jajiga, Otaghak). The parenthetical examples with Persian and English forms make the resource unambiguous, and the sibling set (search_stays, get_stay, etc.) is clearly distinguished.

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?

States the use case ('check a destination exists before searching') and explicitly names the alternative path ('search_stays resolves locations itself'), telling the agent when NOT to bother calling this. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension rewards.

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