neshan_geocode_plus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the tool is more expensive and handles plaque/POI resolution, but lacks details about rate limits, returned data format, error behavior, or whether results are cached. This partial disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 two focused sentences. The first sentence defines purpose and differentiation. The second provides usage guidance and accuracy tips. No redundant or extraneous text; every sentence earns its place.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage distinction, and parameter hints. However, it does not describe the return value format (e.g., coordinates, confidence) or error conditions, leaving some gaps. For a geocoding tool, this is mostly complete but could improve.

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 low (33%), so the description compensates by explaining the purpose of city, province, bias, and bounding box parameters ('improves accuracy'). However, it does not detail the exact format or constraints for bounding box coordinates (e.g., order of ne/sw or bias lat/lng). This adds meaningful context but could be more precise.

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 it geocodes addresses with plaque numbers or named points of interest, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'neshan_geocode' which cannot resolve those. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, achieving full differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'only use this when plaque/POI resolution is actually needed' and notes it is 'More expensive than neshan_geocode'. It also advises providing city, province, bias, and bounding box to improve accuracy, offering clear when/why/alternatives.

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