reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results may be approximate for remote areas. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other traits like rate limits or error handling.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then lists returns, usage guidelines, granularity, and a note. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers return fields, use cases, and granularity options. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the layers parameter's granularity (address, locality, street) and listing the return fields (formatted_address, street, housenumber, etc.), which are not in the input schema.

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 'Convert geographic coordinates (lat/lon) into a human-readable address' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like geocode or batch_reverse_geocode.

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 includes explicit WHEN TO USE and DO NOT USE sections, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate (when you have coordinates) and when to avoid it (when you already have a formatted_address). It also advises on granularity options.

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