chuk-mcp-geocoder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: multi-scale discovery (buildings to cities), sorting by proximity, and output format options. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only/destructive—important gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. The Args/Returns sections are structured for clarity. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Discovers nearby places at different scales...' is slightly verbose), but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a fair job explaining inputs and return format. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple parameters, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, error cases) and clearer differentiation from sibling tools to be fully complete.

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 significant meaning: explaining lat/lon ranges, default values for limit and output_mode, and examples for categories. This goes well beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully document all 5 parameters (e.g., no details on output_mode beyond enum values).

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: 'Find places near a coordinate' with the specific action 'discovers nearby places at different scales'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reverse_geocode' by emphasizing multi-scale discovery rather than single-point reverse geocoding. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'geocode' or 'admin_boundaries'.

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 context through phrases like 'near a coordinate' and 'using reverse geocoding at multiple zoom levels', suggesting it's for proximity-based discovery. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reverse_geocode' or 'geocode', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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