Geocode multiple addresses in one request with structured per-record results. Use for bulk operations instead of repeated single geocode calls. Max 50 per batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | Array of addresses to geocode (max 50 per batch) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| geojson | No | ||
| metrics | No | ||
| summary | No | Map of scalar facts the LLM should surface verbatim | |
| display_hint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'structured per-record results,' which indicates the response format for individual addresses, and reiterates the 'Max 50 per batch' limit. It doesn't specify error handling for partial failures, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance and the batch limit. No wasted words, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 simple batch tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key operational constraints (bulk usage, max batch size, per-record results) without needing to elaborate on return values, which are presumably documented in the output schema.
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%: the single 'addresses' parameter is fully described as 'Array of addresses to geocode (max 50 per batch).' The tool description repeats this limit and doesn't add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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: 'Geocode multiple addresses in one request with structured per-record results.' It uses a specific verb ('geocode') and resource ('multiple addresses'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'geocode' tool by emphasizing batch processing.
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 explicitly directs use: 'Use for bulk operations instead of repeated single geocode calls.' This provides both a when-to-use (bulk) and a when-not-to-use (as a substitute for repeated single calls), clearly differentiating it from the alternative geocode tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools (geocode vs geocode_structured, explore vs search_places, map_match vs trace_attributes) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, with cross-references guiding correct selection. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (geocode, reverse_geocode, batch_geocode, search_places, resolve_intersection), but there are minor deviations: some tools use noun-only names (directions, traffic, weather) and a couple use noun_verb order (place_get, geofence_contains). This creates slight inconsistency but remains readable.
At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but each tool earns its place by covering a distinct geospatial function. The breadth spans geocoding, routing, places, telematics, geofencing, traffic, weather, and account management, making the count reasonable for a comprehensive geo API.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for a geospatial server: forward, reverse, batch, structured, and intersection geocoding; routing, matrix, and isochrones; place search, exploration, and ID lookup; map matching, trace attributes, and point snapping; plus geofencing, traffic, weather, and quota management. No critical gaps or dead ends apparent.