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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it uses Google Maps and accepts place names, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like ambiguity handling (e.g., multiple matches), coordinate format, or whether the department parameter is required for disambiguation. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, examples are compact, and the alternative-routing note is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only geocoding tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what inputs are accepted, the provider (Google Maps), and when not to call it. The only minor gap is not describing the output format (coordinates), but since there's no output schema, a brief note on return shape would have been nice. Still, the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the output from 'coordenadas'.

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 (address and department) are already documented in the schema. The description adds examples of place names and the fact that department is optional, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Convierte') and resource ('una dirección, esquina, barrio o nombre de lugar de Uruguay') into coordinates with Google Maps. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that search_rentals and rank_rentals_for_household already geocode internally, so this tool is only needed for standalone geocoding.

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 explicitly says when NOT to use this tool: if you're calling search_rentals or rank_rentals_for_household with an address, they geocode themselves, so no need to call this first. This is a clear exclusion and alternative routing, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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