reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses units, the return type (display-name string), and demonstrates output with an example. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, coverage limitations, or any caveats about accuracy, which are relevant for a reverse geocoding operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a units note, and an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place, with the example positioned at the end for 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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters and an output schema available. The description adds units and an example, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could be more complete by noting when to prefer it over forward geocoding, but for the tool's complexity it is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reiterating units and providing a worked example that shows exact parameter values and the resulting output pattern. This goes beyond the schema's range descriptions and helps an agent verify correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse geocode a coordinate to a human-readable address.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like geocode (forward geocoding), isochrone, and pois, and the example reinforces the behavior with actual coordinate-to-address mapping.

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 the use case (given lat/lon, get an address) and provides an example, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when to choose this tool over geocode or other siblings. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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