geocoder_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states this is an info retrieval operation, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is minimal on non-functional aspects.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It uses clear reStructuredText-style Args/Returns sections, front-loads the main verb ('Get'), and every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return content. It mentions 'including tool lists and guidance,' which is sufficient for a capabilities endpoint.

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 has 0% description coverage and only defines output_mode as a string with default 'json'. The description adds that it accepts 'json' or 'text', providing more granularity beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema comments.

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 'Get full server capabilities' and specifies what it returns: tool lists, Nominatim API details, and usage guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform geocoding or other specific operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident for retrieving server capabilities. There is no guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with siblings, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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