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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it partially does so by disclosing the return fields and the Venezuela-only coverage limit. It does not say what happens for coordinates outside Venezuela, whether results can be partial or ambiguous, or anything about latency or rate limits.

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 well-formed sentence with the returned fields and the coverage constraint front-loaded. No filler, but the one sentence leaves room that an additional clause on out-of-scope coordinates could have used.

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 two-parameter lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the geographic boundary of validity. The main remaining gap is the behavior for invalid or out-of-country coordinates.

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% and both parameters are already documented as WGS 84 decimal degrees with explicit ranges. The description adds no format, precision, or ordering detail beyond 'coordenadas', so the baseline 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 names a specific operation (reverse geocoding) and enumerates the returned fields (país, estado, municipio, parroquia, códigos postales), plus the geographic scope (Venezuela). It is clearly distinct from get_cities and quote_shipment, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scope clause 'dentro de Venezuela' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies and when it does not apply, but there is no explicit statement of alternatives or preconditions. No mention of when to prefer get_cities for name-based lookups or quote_shipment for shipping context.

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