高德地址转坐标

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the critical requirement of an AMAP_API_KEY, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction is present. A slightly higher score is warranted because the API key is a significant behavioral prerequisite.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes the essential API key requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the input requirements and the general outputs, though it could optionally mention output format or error handling. The API key note is a critical addition.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, clearly explaining their meaning (address and optional city). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '解析' (parse) and clearly states the resource '中国地址' and the outputs '经纬度、行政区划和标准化地址'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cn_amap_regeocode (reverse geocoding) and cn_amap_place_search (place search).

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 mentions the need for an AMAP_API_KEY, which is a crucial usage requirement. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., cn_amap_regeocode) imply the context for each, making the guideline adequate.

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