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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content ('closest ANNCSU addresses with distance in meters'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention behavior when coordinates fall outside Italy or when no address is found within radius.

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, zero waste, with the operation type front-loaded and the return shape following immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 four-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return content and units. The only gap is edge-case behavior (out-of-bounds coordinates, empty results), which is minor given the tight schema bounds.

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 bounds, defaults and units documented for all four parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the coordinate reference frame, which the schema already states.

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+resource ('reverse geocoding', 'find Italian addresses near WGS84 coordinates') and contrasts with the forward-looking sibling zornade_geocode_search by naming the direction explicitly. It does not name the sibling outright, but an agent can distinguish the direction of the operation from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'reverse geocoding' tells an agent to call this when it holds coordinates rather than a text query. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to zornade_geocode_search or zornade_parcel_locate for adjacent needs.

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