ACTION_GEOCODE

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: it lists the exact output variables, states only the first match is used for address lookups, warns that same-named variables get overwritten, flags the third-party overseas service as possibly slow or unreachable, and fixes connect/read timeouts at 10s each. It stops short of Nominatim's rate-limit/usage policy and says nothing about what a partial or empty result looks like beyond the geocode_error variable.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core address↔coordinate purpose, then output variables, then caveats. It is slightly cramped, with a doubled period and several clauses packed into one run-on sentence, but almost every clause carries operational 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned variable snapshot and its error variable. Remaining gaps—rate limits, behavior with multiple matches, and interaction with the workflow-level require/on_error controls—are minor rather than blocking.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the address-over-coordinates precedence rule the description repeats. The description adds only the ${var} interpolation note, and says nothing extra about require, on_error, or node_timeout_ms beyond what the schema states, so this is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb-pair and resource: bidirectional lookup between address and latitude/longitude, via OpenStreetMap Nominatim, key-free but network-required. It explicitly names ACTION_GET_LOCATION as the source of conflicting latitude/longitude variables, so an agent can distinguish the two geo tools without opening a schema.

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?

Direction is clear: supply address to get coordinates, supply latitude/longitude to reverse-lookup an address, and address wins when both are present. What is missing is an explicit exclusion ('do not use this for device GPS position – use ACTION_GET_LOCATION'), which is only hinted at through the variable-overwrite warning.

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