API-Market MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtains' an address, implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Obtain address for location.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 the complexity (a geocoding tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., address format), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool that converts coordinates to addresses, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('language' and 'location'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 purpose: 'Obtain address for location.' It specifies the verb ('obtain') and resource ('address') with the target ('location'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'Forward_Geocoding', which likely converts addresses to coordinates, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'Forward_Geocoding' or other geocoding-related tools in the list, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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