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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying the output coordinate system (Census MAF/TIGER), optional bounded geography fields, exact source attribution, and range-interpolation limits. This provides behavioral context beyond the safety profile set by annotations.

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 sentence that delivers maximum signal in minimum space. It front-loads the core action and then lists all key features without any filler or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, output type, optional geographies, source attribution, and interpolation limits. The only minor omission is the explicit data source (Census Geocoder API), but that is disclosed in the parameter description. Overall, the description is fully adequate.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for both 'address' and 'include_geographies'. The main description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Geocode' paired with a precise resource (structural address in US, Puerto Rico, or US Island Areas), and enumerates distinct output features (Census MAF/TIGER coordinates, optional geographies, source attribution, interpolation limits). No sibling tool performs geocoding, so it is easily distinguished.

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 clearly states the geographic scope and that it handles a single structural address, which tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no sibling geocoding tool exists to cause confusion.

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