Geocode French address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by stating the underlying data source (BAN), the ranking mechanism (score 0-1), and the specific output fields, which go beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter list, and return description. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value. It is concise yet thorough.

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 has 3 parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (label, lat, lon, citycode, postcode, city, score, type) and their meaning. It also provides context about the BAN source and the tool's role in the suite, making it fully informative for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema has full parameter description coverage (100%), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds context: it explains that 'address' is free-text, 'limit' is maximum candidates with default 5, and 'response_format' controls output type. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's minimal 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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'free-text French address' to obtain geographic coordinates and INSEE code. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the output is needed by other tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: to obtain latitude/longitude and citycode for other tools, or to validate/normalize an address. It does not mention when not to use or direct alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools serve different purposes.

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