Mappls Reverse Geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly identifies the operation as a read-only lookup ('get') and tells the agent what kind of result to expect: formatted address plus administrative details. It does not describe edge cases or coordinate-system assumptions, but it doe disclose the core behavior without contradiction.

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 a single sentence that starts with the action, names the exact inputs, and states the outcome. There is no filler or repetition; every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 low complexity tool with two fully documented parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context. The only notable omission is explicit guidance about selecting this tool over its sibling geocoding tools, which is handled separately under usage guidelines.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond naming latitude and longitude, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Th description clearly states a specific verb-resource action: reverse geocoding coordinate pairs into formatted addresses and administrative details. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling mappls_geocode or other address-related tools.

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 the natural use case: when you have latitude and longitude and need an address. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over mappls_geocode, mappls_reverse_geocode sibling alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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