geocode_place

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'via Nominatim,' which indicates an external service dependency, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, no-result handling, or any other operational caveats. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficiently transparent.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and output. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It conveys the core functionality and the external service. The only minor gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools, which is not critical given the descriptive name and clear purpose.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (query and limit), including defaults, constraints, and meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate without extra credit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Geocode') and identifies both the input (place name) and output (coordinates and bounding box). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'find_places_nearby' or 'find_places_in_area' which operate on spatial proximity rather than text-to-coordinate conversion.

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 implies usage when a textual place name needs to be converted to coordinates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_places_nearby or raw_overpass_query, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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