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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new facts: it returns the matched address plus coordinates, signals no-match via found=false, and discloses a cost of $0.001 per call. It does not mention rate limits, but the essentials for safe invocation are present.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then cost, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, return values including the failure case, pricing, and the alternative for bulk work. No output schema is present, yet the description still summarizes the response shape.

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%, so the parameter is already fully documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description nevertheless broadens understood input types to include place names and postal codes, not just street addresses, which the schema text does not say.

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 ('Convert') and resource ('one address, place name or postal code') with the exact output ('latitude/longitude coordinates'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the batch sibling. An agent can tell it apart from batch_geocode and reverse_geocode from the text alone.

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 single-address scope is stated up front ('one address') and the alternative is named with its selecting condition: 'For several addresses use batch_geocode.' Nothing is left to inference about when to switch tools.

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