chuk-mcp-geocoder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a hierarchy from country to neighbourhood and specifies output modes, but it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. The description does not contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it provides only basic behavioral 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by returns, args, and returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains inputs and outputs broadly but lacks details on error cases, performance, or example outputs. Without an output schema, more return value explanation would be helpful, though the description does mention the hierarchy order.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'lat' and 'lon' ranges and 'output_mode' options, which are not in the schema. However, it does not fully document all parameters (e.g., no details on coordinate precision or text output format), so it doesn't reach a perfect 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('administrative boundary hierarchy for a location'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on boundary hierarchy rather than geocoding, routing, or place lookup. The title is null, so the description fully carries the purpose.

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 administrative boundaries are needed for coordinates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reverse_geocode' or 'geocode' from the sibling list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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