geocoder_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the tool's behavior: it returns server capabilities (list of tools, API details, guidance). It is a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description accurately reflects this.

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, with a clear one-line summary followed by an Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the first sentence.

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 output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (full capabilities including tool lists and guidance). For a simple info tool, this is sufficient. Slightly more detail on the return format could improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'output_mode', but the description adds meaning by indicating valid values: 'json' (default) or 'text'. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 'Get full server capabilities' and specifies what is returned: tools list, Nominatim API details, and LLM-friendly usage guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific geocoding or routing operations.

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 for discovering available tools and server capabilities. It does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives, but the context of being a capabilities endpoint makes it clear. Minor improvement could be explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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