Geocode Address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback hierarchy (rooftop to centroid) and the 'accuracy_type' output field, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not cover error handling or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains fallback logic but omits output structure (e.g., coordinate format) and possible accuracy_type values. While clear, it leaves gaps for an agent needing full behavioral details.

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 only 17% (only 'country' described). The description adds no parameter-level details about street, house_number, etc., and does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions. Users get little guidance on which parameters are needed or optional.

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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource: address to latitude+longitude. It differentiates from sibling tools like reverse_geocode, postcode_lookup, and validate_address by stating its core function.

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 an address needs geocoding, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reverse_geocode for coordinates to address). No usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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