tool_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'No auth required.' It omits details about rate limits, error handling, output format, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no other documentation.

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 no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, noting auth, and explaining the parameter. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks information about the return value (e.g., coordinates format). Since there is no output schema, this omission affects completeness. Otherwise, it covers the core functionality adequately.

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 0%, so the description's parameter explanation adds essential meaning. It provides an example format (e.g., 'Paris, France') and clarifies the purpose of place_name. Although minimal, it compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 converts a city or place to coordinates, which is a specific and distinct purpose. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings (e.g., no other geocoding tool exists).

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 notes 'No auth required,' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_verify_place. It lacks context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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