reverse_geocode

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the input convention (lon/lat order, WGS84) and the shape of the result (nearest street plus portal), but says nothing about no-match behavior, result precision, or whether a single or multiple candidates are returned.

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?

A single sentence with the resource, the coordinate convention, and a concrete use case, all front-loaded with no 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the inputs and the gist of the return value, but leaves the response format and failure cases undefined. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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%, and the schema itself only labels both parameters as bare numbers. The description compensates by fixing the argument order (lon first, then lat) and the coordinate system (WGS84), which is exactly the information an agent would otherwise guess wrong.

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 states a specific resource and scope: it returns the nearest street and street number for a set of coordinates, and it names the coordinate system (WGS84). Combined with the tool name, an agent can distinguish it from forward-looking siblings like search_street, though the description never uses an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'finds'.

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?

Usage is only implied via the example '(p.ej. del GPS de la foto)', which hints at the photo-geotagging scenario. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_street or what to do when coordinates are unknown or outside coverage.

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