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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral color with the rooftop-vs-postcode-centroid precision notion and the US-only scope of FEMA flood zone and county FIPS, but says nothing about failure behavior for unmatched or ambiguous addresses or about external lookups/rate limits implied by openWorldHint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and then lists return dimensions in descending specificity; no filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter geocoder with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, output scope, and US-specific caveats, so return values need no further explanation. The main residual gap is address input format and behavior on no-match, which matters for correct invocation.

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 only 50% and the undocumented parameter is the critical one: the description never says what format `address` should take (single free-form line vs. structured components) or how country interacts with output availability. Only the country default (US) is clarified, and that already comes from the schema, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 a specific verb ("Geocode") and resource ("an address") and enumerates the concrete outputs: coordinates, state, county FIPS, city, postcode, FEMA flood zone, and match precision. That is enough for an agent to tell this apart from risk/planning siblings such as assess_risk or estimate_plan without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied: it is obvious you call this when you have an address and need location attributes, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over a sibling, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do for non-US addresses beyond the country parameter. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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