geocode_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (returning coordinates) and implies a sequencing behavior ('use first'), but lacks details on edge cases like failed lookups, multiple results, or geographic restrictions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences front-loaded with purpose and usage. The Args section is tightly integrated and adds value without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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's single parameter and existing output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage timing, and parameter semantics. It doesn't explain the return format, but the output schema does, so that's not required. Minor gaps around error behavior are acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an explicit explanation and example: 'The name of the city or location (e.g., "Karlsruhe, Germany")'. This adds meaning and usage guidance that the schema alone lacks.

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's function: 'Get the latitude and longitude for a city, address, or location.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinctly separates this tool from its location-based siblings like weather, air quality, and cooling spots.

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 instruction 'Always use this tool first if you only have a city name and need coordinates for the other tools' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies that this is a prerequisite for other tools, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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