maps_reverse_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '將座標轉換為地址' implies a read-only lookup operation, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid coordinates. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is zero wasted language, and every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., address format, possible fields), error handling, or any behavioral context. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 100%, with both parameters ('latitude' and 'longitude') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., coordinate formats, valid ranges, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: converting coordinates to an address. It uses a specific verb ('轉換為' meaning 'convert to') and identifies the resource (coordinates to address). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'maps_geocode' which likely performs the inverse operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'maps_geocode' (likely address to coordinates), 'get_place_details', or 'search_nearby', nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for use.

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