reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'nearest official Luxembourg address' implying approximate matching, but does not explain output format, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. It provides basic insight but no depth.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core functionality concisely and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete but lacks details on return type (e.g., address string or structured data), geographic restrictions (Luxembourg only), and behavior for out-of-range coordinates. It adequately covers essentials but not nuances.

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 should add meaning. It mentions coordinates are in 'WGS84', but does not elaborate on valid ranges or format (e.g., decimal degrees). Overall, it adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'nearest official Luxembourg address', clearly indicating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like geocode_address (which likely does forward geocoding) and other data retrieval tools.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as geocode_address for address-to-coordinates lookup. No context on prerequisites or scenarios is provided.

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