reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that property data is returned 'when available' and lists the categories of output, but it does not explain what happens when coordinates fall outside the database, how missing values are represented, or any precision/coordinate-system assumptions.

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 single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the main action and output types. Every clause adds useful information—scope, fallback caveat, and specific returned data—with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter geocoding tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior, outputs, geographic scope, and the conditional property data. It falls just short of complete because it omits handling of out-of-scope coordinates and coordinate-system assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter detail. It adds the meaning 'GPS coordinates' to the two numeric fields, but it does not clarify units, order, valid ranges, or coordinate system beyond what the bare field names 'lat' and 'lon' already imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and names a clear resource: GPS coordinates to a human-readable address plus specific extras like DLS grid reference and property roll number. It also defines geographic scope ('all Canadian cities'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like property_search or dls_convert.

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 phrase 'Convert GPS coordinates to...' establishes the primary use case, and 'Works across all Canadian cities in the CleverTech database' gives a clear geographic context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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