address_geocode

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output includes a granularity level and confidence score, and that it is Japan-only. It does not disclose error handling or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and essential information. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input (Japanese address), output (coordinates, granularity, confidence), and scope (Japan-only). It lacks details on failure behavior or formatting requirements, but these are not critical for a basic geocoding operation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter, describing it as 'A Japanese address string.' The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the same 'Japanese address' context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Geocode'), the target resource ('a Japanese address'), and the output ('WGS84 lat/lng coordinates, with a granularity level and confidence score'). The 'Japan-only' constraint further differentiates it from sibling address tools like address_reverse_geocode or address_normalize.

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 usage context by stating 'Japan-only', which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a straightforward geocoding tool this is sufficient context.

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