search_location_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with coordinates, address, and metadata, but does not detail search behavior (e.g., fuzziness, result count), side effects, or authentication needs. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 efficient: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema (indicated but not detailed), the description covers the return value structure. It is complete enough for a straightforward search tool, though missing usage cues.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'location' parameter ('Location string (address or place name)'), providing context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search for possible coordinates of a location') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pois or search_known_routes by focusing on coordinate retrieval from an address or place name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_coordinates_object or search_pois. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases.

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