reverse_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the output is a human-readable address with administrative details, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, result accuracy, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is transparent about inputs and output essence but leaves gaps.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary words and covers the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient and includes useful detail (list of admin details). No waste.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (address with admin details). It does not detail exact fields for json vs text, but the format parameter description in the schema partially covers that. For a low-complexity tool, the description is fairly complete, though it could mention error responses or limitations.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented clearly (latitude range, longitude range, format enum). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 the tool's purpose: reverse geocoding a latitude/longitude pair into a human-readable address with administrative details. The verb 'reverse geocode' is specific and directly conveys the core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (geolocate_ip, get_my_ip) which deal with IP-based location, not coordinates.

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 appropriate usage: given coordinates, get an address. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but the tool name and description make the context clear. Sibling tools are for IP geolocation, so the differentiation is implicit. No exclusions are provided, but the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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