nominatim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the ID format and prefixes but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid IDs, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like.

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?

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, parameter format, and object type mapping. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or important behavioral constraints. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats the ID format and prefix information from the schema without adding significant additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Look up') and resource ('OpenStreetMap objects by their OSM IDs'), with explicit mention of the three object types (node, way, relation). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on ID-based lookup rather than geocoding or address search.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (looking up objects by OSM IDs) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools (reverse_geocode, search_address) serve different purposes, but the description doesn't contrast with them.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool uses OpenStreetMap Nominatim, which adds useful context about the data source, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is accurate but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and data source without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read-only operation. It specifies the data source (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), which adds context, but could benefit from mentioning potential limitations or output format to enhance completeness.

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 fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but does not contradict it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('reverse geocode') and resource ('latitude/longitude coordinate pair'), and distinguishes the tool's purpose from its siblings by specifying it converts coordinates to addresses, unlike 'lookup' or 'search_address' which likely perform different operations.

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 by stating the tool converts coordinates to addresses, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup' or 'search_address'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the service provider (OpenStreetMap Nominatim) and the return type (matching places with coordinates), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, potential costs, privacy considerations, or what happens with ambiguous queries. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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?

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, method, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality immediately clear.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context for a geocoding tool but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does and what it returns at a high level, but doesn't address important contextual elements like response format details, error conditions, or integration considerations with the OpenStreetMap service that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'free-form address or place name' which is already covered in the query parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Forward geocode'), resource ('a free-form address or place name'), and technology used ('using OpenStreetMap Nominatim'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'reverse_geocode' by specifying forward geocoding (address→coordinates) rather than reverse geocoding (coordinates→address).

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 forward geocoding but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup' (sibling tool). It provides context about what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other geocoding or lookup methods available on the server.

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