maps_geocode

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, so the description adds value by explaining the ZERO_RESULTS behavior and the output contents (normalised components, place ID, viewport). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful, non-obvious detail.

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 three compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage tip, and error-behavior note. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool returns (coordinates, components, place ID, viewport) and a key edge case (empty array = ZERO_RESULTS). It could detail the output structure further, but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief usage tip for the components parameter, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. It does not significantly deepen understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 converts an address into coordinates and lists additional outputs (normalised components, place ID, viewport). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_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?

The description gives specific usage context, such as using components to narrow ambiguous addresses, e.g. 'country:CH'. It does not name alternative tools, but the core use case is clear. The 'ZERO_RESULTS' note also guides error interpretation.

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