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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful details about return values (lat/lng, components, accuracy, data source) and data quality (USPS-standardized, Census data), which are not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 cover purpose and output details efficiently. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action and result.

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?

The description sufficiently covers input scope (US/Canada), output fields, and data source. An output schema exists but is not needed for completeness. Could mention lack of international support, but it is explicit about US/Canada only.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (address format and limit range). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb 'geocode', the resource 'address', and the scope 'US/Canada'. It specifies the output (lat/lng, parsed components, accuracy type, data source) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'address.geocodio.reverse' by explicitly stating 'forward geocode'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for forward geocoding of US/Canada addresses, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for international addresses) or reference sibling tools like 'address.postal.lookup' or 'address.geocodio.reverse'.

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