geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the coordinate units, the output format via example, and the input/output mapping. It does not mention error handling for ambiguous or non-existent place names, but for a simple stateless lookup the core behavior is 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 appropriately brief: purpose, units, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the input, output coordinate system, and provides an example, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only a plain string 'query' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the query is a place name and gives a concrete example showing expected usage, adding meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 and resource: 'Forward geocode a place name to a WGS84 coordinate'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling reverse_geocode by specifying 'forward' and stating the direction from place name to coordinate.

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 makes clear this is for converting a place name to coordinates, which tells the agent when to use it versus reverse_geocode. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative conditions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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