坐标逆地理编码

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

Annotations indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent tool. The description adds crucial context about handling both GCJ-02 and WGS84 inputs, output always in GCJ-02, and a special condition for marking device location, which goes beyond 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavioral notes without extraneous words.

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 (5 params, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the core functionality, coordinate handling, and source marking, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the output coordinate system and the device_gps condition for coordinate_source, but does not cover radius, location, or include_nearby_pois meaning beyond schema defaults.

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 (转换) and resource (坐标 to 结构化地址及附近 POI), and the mention of coordinate systems distinguishes it from sibling tools like amap_convert_coordinates.

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 when coordinates need to be converted to address/POI, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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