reverse_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the lookup action and return contents (place name, address, bounding box) but lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read-only tool, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured docstring with a one-line summary, a brief explanation, and an Args/Returns section. It is concise with no unnecessary words and front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it does not specify the exact structure of address components or bounding box, which would be helpful for parsing the result.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: lat/lon (coordinates), zoom (detail level with example values), language (preference), and output_mode (json/text). It adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 'Reverse geocode coordinates to a place name and address', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like geocode (forward) and batch_geocode (batch) by focusing on coordinates-to-address conversion.

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 implicitly indicates usage when coordinates are available and a human-readable place/address is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternatives such as geocode for forward geocoding or nearby_places for places near a point.

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