Geocode a free-form address into structured coordinates, city, state, ZIP, and county data for mapping, search, or location workflows; not limited to businesses.
Geocode a free-form address. Resolves a free-form address into structured location data (coordinates, city, state, zip, county). Not business-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Free-form address to geocode |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add value by listing the returned components (coordinates, city, state, zip, county), which is meaningful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, provider/coverage limits, ambiguity handling, or failure behavior for unparseable input.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat second. Every clause carries information the agent can use.
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 single-parameter geocoding tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned structured fields, which is the key missing piece. It is largely complete, though the absence of any note on ambiguous/partial address handling leaves a small gap.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Free-form address to geocode'), so the schema already documents it. The description merely restates 'free-form address' without adding format examples, accepted ambiguity, or regional syntax guidance, which 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?
States a precise verb+resource ('Geocode a free-form address') and enumerates the resolved output fields (coordinates, city, state, zip, county), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate from the many geocoding siblings present in the toolset (geocoding_lookup, geocoding_reverse, apple_maps_reverse_geocode), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Not business-scoped' implies this is address-level geocoding rather than a business lookup, which gives a weak scope cue. However, no alternatives are named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions are given, so the routing decision against geocoding_reverse or geocoding_search is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.