geocode

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: global coverage via Jiskta index, confidence score meanings (1.0 exact, 0.7 street, 0.5 postcode), and return fields (lat, lon, confidence, matched components). This exceeds expectations for a simple tool.

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?

Well-structured with sections and examples, though some redundancy (e.g., 'worldwide' and 'global coverage' is repeated). Could be slightly tighter without loss of clarity.

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?

Complete given the tool's simplicity: one parameter, no annotations, and the description covers input examples, output format, and confidence interpretation. The output schema existence is noted but not needed due to rich description.

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 coverage is 0% (address param undefined in schema), but the description compensates with examples and explanation of free-form address strings, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 explicitly states 'Convert a street address to coordinates (forward geocoding)', which is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from the sibling 'reverse_geocode' by specifying 'forward geocoding'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reverse_geocode'. While the sibling list includes reverse_geocode, the description does not direct the agent to choose appropriately.

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