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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds real behavioral context: it enumerates the return payload (name, address, lat/lon, bounding box, osm element, overpass_area_id) and discloses a quota cost ('One call counts as one geocoding request'). It does not say what happens on zero matches or how results are ranked, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered block: purpose first, then matching behavior, then result shape, then the overpass hand-off, then language list, then quota. It is slightly run-on and the trailing language sentence duplicates the schema enum, but nothing is seriously wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the result fields, including the bounding-box ordering (south, west, north, east) that the nudge toward overpass_query depends on. For a 7-parameter, nested-object tool it is close to complete; missing only failure/empty-result behavior and relevance ordering.

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 86%, so the schema already documents kind, near, within, limit, language, country_codes and query. The description adds one genuine clarification beyond that – partial/substring matching on the query string – but otherwise restates the language enum and describes return values rather than input semantics. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Finds places, addresses and points of interest by name (geocoding)'), which is clearly forward geocoding and implicitly the complement of geocode_reverse. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the forward-vs-reverse split.

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?

'Partial text works, as for autocomplete' tells the agent how to phrase queries, and the note that the returned overpass_area_id should be passed to overpass_query as area(id:N) gives a concrete hand-off to a sibling tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over overpass_query or geocode_reverse, and no exclusion conditions.

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