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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that results come from Google Maps, which helps set accuracy expectations, but it does not discuss failure modes (ambiguous address, not found) or rate-limit behavior. With annotations carrying the main load, 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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose and output come first, and the sibling auto-geocoding caveat follows as a useful qualifier.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input scope, return value (coordinates), provider (Google Maps), and relationship to siblings. It is nearly complete; only error/ambiguity behavior is missing.

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 the schema already documents address and department with examples. The description adds 'barrio' as an input type not explicitly in the schema examples, but otherwise repeats the same address forms. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb (convierte) and resource (dirección, esquina, barrio o lugar de Uruguay) and the output (coordenadas/Google Maps). Examples like «Tres Cruces» and «Facultad de Ingeniería» make it concrete, and it distinguishes itself from siblings that geocode internally.

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?

Explicitly notes that search_rentals and rank_rentals_for_household geocode automatically when given an address, which tells the agent when this tool is unnecessary. It does not state a direct 'use this when you need raw coordinates' rule, but the contrast is clear enough to guide selection.

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