geoapify

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the REST endpoint and the incremental-typing use context, but says nothing about rate limits, result ordering/pagination, or how many suggestions are returned by default.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the tool's identity and function, with the endpoint appended as a secondary detail. No wasted text, though the leading phrase largely restates the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about what a suggestion contains, but it does cover purpose, use case, and endpoint. It is adequate for invocation but leaves return-shape and sibling-routing questions unanswered.

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 7 well-documented parameters (bias, lang, filter, type, limit, format), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (suggest/complete) and resource (addresses/places) for a partial query, plus the upstream REST endpoint. It's clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling geoapify_geocode_search, so an agent must infer the autocomplete-vs-search boundary.

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?

'ideal for as-you-type inputs' implies the usage context, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., use geocode_search for complete queries), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds the HTTP method and path (GET /v1/geocode/reverse), a small but useful behavioral detail. No annotation contradiction; with the safety profile already covered, this is adequate without being rich.

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 short clauses with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Every element 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 simple read-only lookup the essentials are covered, but with no output schema the description could have sketched the response shape and, given six parameters, mentioned defaults ( format, result limit). It is minimally complete rather than thorough.

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% and all six parameters (lat, lon, lang, type, limit, format) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('turn coordinates into the nearest address / place') plus the exact REST endpoint, so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. The word 'reverse' cleanly distinguishes it from the forward-geocoding siblings geoapify_geocode_search and geoapify_geocode_autocomplete.

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 'coordinates into address' framing implies usage (call it when you already have lat/lon), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or naming of alternatives such as the forward-geocode siblings. An agent can infer the context but must reason about routing itself.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /v1/geocode/search), which is modest extra context, but says nothing about rate limits, API key/auth requirements, or result ordering behavior.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first, followed by the API reference. Nothing is redundant or padded; every clause carries 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns ('coordinates and structured address parts'). No output schema exists, so mentioning the return shape is valuable, though pagination and result-count behavior go unmentioned.

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 all seven parameters (bias, lang, text, type, limit, filter, format) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that input is a free-form address or place name, adding no syntax, format, or default details 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?

States a specific verb and resource: turning a free-form address or place name into coordinates and structured address parts, and names the operation as 'forward geocoding'. It is clear in isolation but never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like geoapify_geocode_reverse or geoapify_geocode_autocomplete.

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 implied by the term 'forward geocoding' and the direction of transformation (address → coordinates), so an agent can infer the use case. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names the alternative tools (reverse geocoding, autocomplete) that share its namespace.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail ('approximate' location, plus the REST endpoint GET /v1/ipinfo), but says nothing about behavior on invalid/private IPs, rate limits, or response shape.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and the return fields before the endpoint reference. Everything 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (country, city, coordinates), and the readOnly annotation covers the safety dimension. Minor gaps remain around invalid-IP handling and result accuracy, but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 'ip' and 'lang' parameters are already fully documented in structured data, including the IPv4/IPv6 requirement. The description repeats none of the parameter semantics and does not explain how 'lang' affects results, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('location of an IP address') and enumerates what the result contains (country, city, coordinates). This is clearly distinguishable from the address-based geocode siblings, which take address strings rather than IPs.

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: the agent must infer that this tool applies when it has an IP address instead of an address string. No explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling geocoder would be the right choice instead.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description carries less burden. It adds the REST endpoint reference but no other behavioral context such as rate limits, budget caps, or whether the result is a polygon. With annotations covering safety, this is an acceptable but not generous level of disclosure.

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 short clauses with the core definition front-loaded, then the endpoint reference. No padding, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could usefully say what is returned (e.g. a GeoJSON polygon or feature collection) and any budget/rate constraints. For a 7-parameter spatial tool, the definition is serviceable but omits return-shape detail the agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including lat, lon, mode, type, range and traffic is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 (compute) and resource (reachability isoline), then defines it precisely as 'the area reachable from a point within a time or distance budget'. This clearly differentiates it from the routing sibling and from the geocoding tools, without needing to name them.

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 implied by the purpose statement (use this when you need an area reachable within a budget), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as geoapify_routing for point-to-point paths, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the routing-vs-isoline choice to inference.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Geoapify REST: GET /v2/place-details' is consistent with that read-only profile. The description adds the optional-features behavior, but says nothing about rate limits, error cases, or what a missing place yields — modest added value over the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the argument contract and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, but for a well-known 'place details' operation the description covers the input contract and the optional feature-set behavior sufficiently for correct invocation. It could say a bit more about what the returned detail actually contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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 every parameter including lang and features is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id-vs-lat/lon mutual exclusivity but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information ... for a place') and clarifies the optional geometry/features scope. It also ties itself to the geoapify_places sibling by naming where the `place_id` comes from, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like geoapify_geocode_reverse or geoapify_places.

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 gives call-shape guidance ('provide either id OR both lat and lon'), which is genuinely useful selection logic, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as reverse geocoding or the places search. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real weight here and delivers useful context: the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the backing endpoint (GET /v2/places). It stops short of describing pagination behavior, result caps, or auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, return shape second, endpoint last. No filler, nothing that fails to earn 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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, stating the return type is important and it does so. The one weakness is that 'within an area' is asserted but never tied to the optional 'filter' parameter, leaving the agent to infer how spatial scoping is actually performed.

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 every parameter is already documented with examples. The description echoes the category/name/conditions concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making this a baseline score.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search for places (POIs)') plus the scoping mechanism (by category within an area) and optional filters. It is clearly distinct from geocode/place_details in spirit, but never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by name/conditions' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. It never tells the agent when to pick this over geoapify_geocode_search or geoapify_place_details, or that categories is required for every call.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields (distance, time, legs) and the REST endpoint, but says nothing about API-key requirements, rate limits, or how many waypoints are permitted.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values; the REST endpoint note is slightly extraneous but harmless and informative.

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 no-output-schema read tool, the description helpfully summarizes the return shape (distance, time, legs) and identifies the endpoint. It is largely complete, with minor gaps around authentication and response format options ('json' vs 'geojson') that the schema partially covers.

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 all six parameters including the pipe-separated waypoint format and mode values. The description only restates 'waypoints' and 'travel mode' without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compute a route'), the resource (waypoints), the key parameter (travel mode), and the return payload (distance, time, legs). This clearly separates it from geocoding and isoline siblings, which do not compute point-to-point routes.

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 implied — you call it when you need a route between waypoints — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as geoapify_isoline for reachability instead of routing.

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