geocoding_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'typed Nominatim JSONv2 places' but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth about the tool's behavior.

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 at 24 words across two sentences. It front-loads the key action and resource, provides a specific example, and contains no filler. 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format ('typed Nominatim JSONv2 places'). All 5 parameters are described in the schema. However, the tool could benefit from a brief note clarifying its distinct use case among sibling geocoding tools, though it is still sufficiently complete for a straightforward lookup.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides an example of OSM ID format. The schema already defines each parameter clearly, so the description does not enhance understanding.

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 purpose: 'Lookup Nominatim OSM ids' and specifies the return type 'typed Nominatim JSONv2 places'. It provides concrete examples of OSM ID formats, making it distinct from sibling tools like geocoding_search and geocoding_reverse.

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 usage when you have OSM IDs ('comma-separated OSM ids') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include any exclusion criteria. No guidance on best practices or prerequisites.

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