geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic transformation and mentions 'metadata' without explaining what metadata is included, how ambiguous results are handled, or whether any rate limits or errors apply. No safety or side-effect information is given.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it may be too terse for a tool that could benefit from additional context, but conciseness itself is strong.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with two parameters, but no annotations and no visible output schema. The description does not explain what 'metadata' means, what the return format is, or how the limit parameter affects results. Given that a geocoding tool typically returns candidates with scores, a brief note on result ordering or ambiguity handling would be expected.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (query or limit) by name or explain their semantics. It does imply that 'query' is a place name or address, but 'limit' remains entirely undocumented, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Resolve') and clearly identifies the resource ('place name or address') and the output ('latitude/longitude and metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode, which would do the opposite operation.

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 tool is for forward geocoding (place/address to coordinates), which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as reverse_geocode or snap_to_network, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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