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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (OpenStreetMap), cost per call ($0.000800), deduplication of OSM elements, and ambiguity flagging. However, it does not mention auth, rate limits, or error handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then additional features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, so description adequately explains output components (coordinates, address components, confidence, precision classification). Covers deduplication and ambiguity. Misses error cases and pagination, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage. The description restates the purpose of the 'query' parameter but adds no new semantics. It does not explain 'limit' or 'country_codes' beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts a free-form address or place name into coordinates with normalized components, confidence score, and precision classification. It also mentions deduplication and ambiguity handling, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 description implies usage for geocoding addresses and mentions cost and data source, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are in different domains, so the context is clear enough.

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