geocoder_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and parameter options but does not cover side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by return values and parameter details. Each sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, return fields, and parameter. It lacks details on error cases or behavior for invalid input, but for a simple status tool it is fairly complete.

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 description explains the 'output_mode' parameter with valid values ('json' or 'text') and default, adding meaning beyond the schema which only specifies type and default. Schema coverage is given as 0% but the description actually covers the parameter, so baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'geocoder server status'. It lists specific return fields (version, URL, cache stats, tool count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'geocode' or 'batch_geocode'.

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 retrieving server status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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