Resolve a Philippine place name to PSGC

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds the 'fuzzy' behavior, indicating approximate matching, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose how ambiguity is handled (e.g., multiple matches) or what happens when no match is found.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous detail. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of the output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It does not explicitly address edge cases like no-match behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return format, so only a minor gap exists.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including detailed examples. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Fuzzy-resolve a Philippine place name to its canonical PSGC record.' This specifies the action (fuzzy-resolve), the input (a Philippine place name), and the output (a canonical PSGC record), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on data retrieval or statistics.

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 implies usage when a user needs to convert a free-text place name into a standard PSGC code, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_location_hierarchy or list_admin_units. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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