geocode_address

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns a matched address, coordinates and score, may return multiple candidates for ambiguous addresses, errors on outside-city addresses, and ignores unit numbers. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing useful information: what it does, what it returns, error behavior, input limitations, and when to use it. There is no filler or redundancy.

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, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is fully adequate. It covers invocation, return shape, edge cases, and explicit usage guidance without needing to restate structured data.

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 schema already documents the single 'address' parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful interpretive meaning beyond the schema by explaining ambiguity handling, unsupported place names, and ignored unit numbers, making the tool's input behavior much clearer.

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 and resource: it finds a Glendale street address via a city geocoder, and tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. It also differentiates itself from other tools that accept an address directly, so an agent can identify this tool's unique role.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'call this only to check or disambiguate one' and notes that other address-accepting tools make this unnecessary in normal flows. It also gives boundary conditions such as outside-city-limit errors and unsupported inputs like place names or unit numbers.

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