geocode_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-call profile is covered. The description usefully adds the external data source, which explains the open-world behavior, but does not note failure modes (unmatched addresses), rate limits, or localization, keeping it at the minimum-viable level.

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?

A single telegraphic sentence with the input→output mapping front-loaded and the use case trailing. Every element earns its place, though the compressed style borders on terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly omitted, and the tool is simple with only one parameter. Still, the description leaves the required parameter format and address-scope expectations underspecified for a geocoding call.

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 single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'Adresse précise' does convey that the input should be a fully qualified address rather than a partial/fuzzy term, but gives no format example, country scope, or handling of ambiguous input.

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 transformation: precise address to coordinates, and even names the backing service (api-adresse.data.gouv.fr). It implicitly contrasts with fuzzy-input siblings like autocomplete/place_autocomplete by emphasizing 'Adresse précise', but never names them explicitly.

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?

'pour centrer une recherche sur un domicile' gives one concrete use case, which implies when to reach for it. However it offers no when-not guidance and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as search_city or place_autocomplete, which overlap in the geocoding space.

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