reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention output format, error cases (e.g., invalid coordinates), or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity about what 'human-readable place' actually returns.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, which lowers the burden. However, the description leaves ambiguity relative to sibling 'describe_area' and lacks guidance on output meaning, making it adequate but not complete.

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 compensate. It mentions 'coordinates' but does not clarify units, ranges, or that lat and lon are required. The parameter names themselves carry all meaning, and the description adds no value beyond them.

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 'Resolve coordinates to a human-readable place' uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('coordinates'), and the tool name clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'geocode'. It conveys the core action unambiguously.

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 for converting coordinates to place names, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'geocode' or 'describe_area'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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