geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that multiple candidates may be returned for ambiguous city names and cites the data source (Open-Meteo CC BY 4.0). However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if the city is not found), rate limits, or idempotency, which would be valuable for an agent.

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, consisting of two short sentences. Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, the second adds essential nuance about multiple candidates and data source. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the low complexity (3 parameters, all documented, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main functionality, edge cases (same-name cities), and data provenance. The existence of an output schema means detailed return value documentation is not required in the 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context only for the 'city' parameter (it is the search input). It does not elaborate on 'count' or 'language' beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description meets the baseline but adds minimal extra value.

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's function: search for a city name and return latitude/longitude coordinates. It also mentions handling ambiguous city names by showing multiple candidates, which adds specificity. The tool is well-distinguished from its siblings (greet, calculator, etc.), which have unrelated purposes.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool—when needing coordinates for a city. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no explicit exclusions are necessary. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, which would improve clarity.

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