neshan_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint does not resolve plaque numbers or POI names, which is key behavioral info. It also mentions cost (cheaper). While it doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., rate limits, auth), it provides sufficient transparency for a simple geocoding 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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, cost/usage guidance, and limitation. No wasted words.

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 is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it (and when not to), and its limitations. No additional information is necessary.

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%, with a single parameter 'address' described generically. The description adds meaning by specifying it handles Persian addresses and noting limitations (no plaque/POI resolution). This adds value beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 core purpose: 'Convert a free-text Persian address into geographic coordinates.' It uses a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('address into coordinates'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'neshan_geocode_plus' by highlighting cost and address types.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Cheaper than neshan_geocode_plus — prefer this by default. Switch to neshan_geocode_plus only when the address includes a plaque (پلاک) number or refers to a point of interest by name.' This clearly states when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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