reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the operation (returns information, not mutating data) and details the output contents. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or network dependencies, but for a read-only reverse geocoding tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, detailed paragraph, and explicit Args/Returns sections. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes value, and the structure aids scanning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both inputs thoroughly, explains the output structure, and gives usage context. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining latitude and longitude as decimal degrees in WGS84. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's basic number type and required flags.

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 converts geographic coordinates to a detailed address and location description, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling geocode_address (which does the inverse) by focusing on coordinate-to-address conversion.

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 provides clear context by stating it is useful for translating GPS coordinates into human-readable locations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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