Find a place

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: region/country/postcode results include bbox and a `served` tri-state, approximate marking, and a `message` on failure. It stops short of describing coordinate precision or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers in accepted inputs and edge-case behavior. Mostly tight, though the address-degradation sentence is dense and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (bbox, served, approximate, message). Complete enough for an agent to call it and interpret results, missing only the coordinates' format/precision.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the single `query` param is already fully documented. The description reinforces the accepted formats and adds the regional-resolution caveat, giving slight extra meaning, but largely echoes the schema, keeping it near the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: turns a place/region/country/postcode into coordinates. It also enumerates additional accepted inputs (plus codes, map links, street addresses), making the geocoding role unmistakable and clearly distinct from the plotting/report siblings.

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?

Explains the input forms accepted and, importantly, where street-address resolution works (Norway, Belgium, Denmark) versus where addresses degrade to approximate settlements. This gives clear context for what the tool can and cannot do, though it doesn't name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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