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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data source, the NLOD 2.0 open licence, and the fact that no authentication is required. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, then adds return fields and licensing/auth context, and 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 read-only reverse-geocoding tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its geographic scope, its data source, licensing, and auth requirements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the coordinate-based and radius-based search semantics but does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('Norwegian place names near a geographic coordinate') and labels the operation as reverse geocoding. It also names the output fields, making it easy to distinguish from sibling name-search or detail-lookup 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 reverse-geocoding framing clearly indicates use when a coordinate is available and place names are wanted nearby. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_names or get_place, but the intended context is unambiguous and no misleading use cases are suggested.

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