Geocode a free-text address

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 explains that the tool returns ranked candidates with specified fields. It does not disclose if the tool has side effects (e.g., auto-population is a downstream consequence), nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or data retention. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not detailed.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient and free of fluff. However, it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and output fields. It explains how to use the result. Missing details about error handling or input validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a geocoding tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'free-text address' for the query parameter but does not explicitly describe the limit parameter or provide guidance on its usage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema implies.

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 resolves a free-text address into ranked candidates with specific fields (formatted, placeId, location, components). It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by indicating it should be used before creating a project for a real listing.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before creating a project for a real listing') and how to use the output ('pass the chosen candidate as the project address'). It also advises to prefer candidates with isStreetLevel=true. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but no alternative geocoding sibling exists.

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