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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond purpose: no note that forward geocoding can return multiple ambiguous candidates per query, how the limit applies per query vs. overall, or how results are ordered. With rich annotations the bar is lower, but there is essentially zero added behavior here.

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 primary verb and both modes front-loaded; no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness means it leaves real gaps rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

This is a dual-branch (oneOf) tool with a limit cap, bbox/language/countryCode context, and up to 10 queries per forward call, and there is no output schema. A single sentence covering only the two directions is not enough for an agent to call it correctly without reading the full schema.

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 reported at 100%, so the schema is the primary documentation source and a 3 is the baseline. The description does implicitly map 'place names' to the queries/forward branch and 'coordinates' to latitude/longitude/reverse, which helps orient the agent to the oneOf structure, but it says nothing about limit, context.bbox, language, or countryCode.

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?

Names two concrete operations (forward geocoding of place names, reverse geocoding of coordinates) with clear verbs and resources, so the agent immediately knows the domain. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. project_configure_search, map_get, search), which keeps it below 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?

The two directions implicitly tell the agent which mode to pick based on whether it holds names or coordinates, but there is no explicit 'use X when you have Y' statement, no mention of the action enum values 'forward'/'reverse' by name, and no guidance on when a different tool (map_get, project_configure_search) would be better.

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