geo_reverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It reveals the use of Nominatim (external service) and that it returns a full address, but it omits critical details: rate limits, data sources, accuracy, error handling for invalid coordinates, and output format specifics. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core functionality.

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 should elaborate on the return structure. It vaguely says 'Returns the full address with structured components' without specifying the fields (e.g., road, city, country). For a tool with many siblings, this lack of detail could lead to incomplete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (lat and lng) with clear range descriptions. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: convert latitude/longitude coordinates to a human-readable address using Nominatim.' It specifies the verb (convert), resource (coordinates to address), and service (Nominatim). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo_forward.

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 usage when coordinates are available and an address is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention explicit alternatives (e.g., 'Use geo_forward for address to coordinates'). With sibling tools like geo_forward present, more explicit differentiation would help.

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