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

The description says 'Geocoding by OpenStreetMap Nominatim', which indicates an external open-world web service. This directly contradicts the annotation openWorldHint=false, which declares the tool's domain of interaction is closed. Per the rubric, a contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then a brief attribution. It is concise, though the ODbL/license line is not essential for tool selection and slightly dilutes focus.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. It clarifies output ordering ('best match first') and a behavioral nuance about city resolution, which is helpful. The main gap is the unresolved annotation contradiction, but as a description it is largely complete for the call.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., it never mentions the limit parameter or query syntax), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a place name or address to coordinates, best match first.' This clearly tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish the tool from any named sibling (e.g., assess_place), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: useful when a name is ambiguous and a candidate must be chosen before calling another tool. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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