reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the dataset is limited to Norwegian addresses, results are ranked by distance, and only officially registered addresses are returned. It does not disclose what happens when no address falls within the 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then output contents, then usage, then a concrete example. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the return-format sentence is still helpful. The main remaining gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter and the absence of an explicit pointer to search_address for the reverse case.

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 only 25% — just 'radius' is documented in the schema, and 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description contributes semantics for lat/lon via the example and for radius via 'radius=100', but leaves the default result count and its cap unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 with scope: 'Nearest official Norwegian addresses to a coordinate', and even names the payload (distance, municipality, cadastral identifiers). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the forward-looking search_address sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('what address is at lat X, lon Y', anchoring GPS positions) with a working example invocation. It stops short of explicitly naming search_address as the forward-geocoding alternative for name-based lookups, so routing between the two 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.