geocode_address

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return values but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or behavior for invalid addresses. For a read-only tool, basic transparency is adequate but could be improved.

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 concise, using a short paragraph plus a structured docstring for parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary 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 no annotations, one required parameter, and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers key aspects: purpose, return values, and parameter usage. Lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a simple geocoding tool.

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 description includes a docstring for the 'adresse' parameter with an example ('8 boulevard du Port, Amiens'). Despite 0% schema coverage, this compensates well by explaining the parameter meaning and format.

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 geocodes a French address using BAN and returns normalized address, coordinates, postal code, commune, and INSEE code. It distinguishes from siblings like dpe_logement, resolve_commune, and risques_immobilier by specifying its utility for targeting risks/DPE at the exact address.

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 geocoding French addresses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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