geocode

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by specifying Indian address focus. However, it omits details like authentication, rate limits, precision, or error handling, which are important for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

A single sentence conveys purpose and supported input types efficiently. No extraneous information, every word 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 simple tool (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could explicitly state the return format (lat/lng) and briefly mention when to prefer sibling tools, but it's nearly sufficient.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond mentioning pincodes, which is covered by the address parameter description.

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 explicitly states the tool converts Indian addresses/place names into coordinates, listing supported input types (full addresses, landmarks, cities, pincodes). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like reverse_geocode or autosuggest.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that autosuggest is for incomplete addresses or text_search for general queries. The description only implies usage for geocoding.

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