Convert an address or place name into latitude and longitude coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Optional latitude to bias results. | |
| lon | No | Optional longitude to bias results. | |
| lang | No | Optional language code, for example en. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Address or place name to geocode. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as data source, accuracy, rate limits, or error handling. It only states the basic conversion without additional context.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous words; highly concise.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, error scenarios, or how it differs from reverse_geocode, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the tool definition does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 specific action (convert) and resource (address/place name) with a clear output (latitude/longitude coordinates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like reverse_geocode, which does the opposite.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reverse_geocode or search_places. The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
