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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds return format (JSON ARRAY of GeoJSON FeatureCollections, one per query) and the API endpoint, providing context beyond annotations. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but is sufficiently transparent for a read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key details. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Perfectly concise and structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (batch operation, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential return format and capacity limit. It could mention error handling or partial failures, but is generally complete enough for an agent to select and use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no new parameter information beyond mentioning the 50-query limit, which is already in the schema (maxItems:50). 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 states the verb 'Forward-geocode' and the resource 'queries', with a specific scope of up to 50 per request. It distinguishes from siblings like maptiler_geocode (single query) and maptiler_reverse_geocode by mentioning batch and forward direction.

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 multiple queries in one request ('up to 50 queries in one request'), but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives. It provides clear context for batch vs single queries, with no exclusions or misleading guidance.

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