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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: download links build their file on open with nothing saved to disk, a cross-tool constraint never to pass those links to open_gis_file, and that French street addresses are refined with the national address base. However, these are caveats rather than a rich account of data sourcing, error handling, or resolution confidence, so this sits at solid-but-not-exceptional.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then outputs, then exclusions, then operational caveats in a single dense block. Nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral information, though it runs long and the output-format enumeration partially duplicates what the output schema already covers.

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?

Covers modes, coverage (worldwide OSM plus French national base), output formats, batch limits, and the location-privacy rule. With an output schema present, it need not explain return values, yet the added format hints (QGIS-ready CSV, KML, GeoJSON) still help the agent set user expectations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter's intent and bounds. The description adds mode-mapping value (query vs latitude/longitude vs text vs addresses, list capped at 100, CSV with an address column), but does not add syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 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?

States specific verbs and resources across three modes: forward geocoding (coordinates of an address/place), reverse geocoding (address at given coordinates), and batch plotting of a list on a map. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like convert_coordinates, get_elevation, or french_parcel without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it and, more unusually, lists when NOT to use it (weather, opening hours, reviews, directions, property prices, general knowledge) with the instruction to answer those without the tool. It also routes the agent away from the user's own location unless typed, which is a real disambiguation risk for geocoders.

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