osm_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 payment flow: cost ($0.001), requirement for a signed x402 v2 authorization, and the two possible responses (paid result vs 402 accept-list). It also mentions the output structure. This is good transparency for a monetized tool, though it doesn't cover error handling 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?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds pricing and output, and the third details the payment argument. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (normalized address + place class/type). The payment flow is fully described. Missing details like error codes or rate limits, but the core functionality and monetization model are sufficiently covered for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that '_payment' is optional and describes its behavior (forwarded if present, returns 402 list if absent). For 'lat' and 'lon', the schema already provides clear descriptions, so the tool-level description doesn't need elaboration.

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 it does 'Reverse geocoding via OpenStreetMap Nominatim. lat/lon → normalized address + place class/type.' This explicitly names the verb (reverse geocode), resource (OSM Nominatim), and output. It also naturally distinguishes from the sibling 'osm_geocode' which does forward geocoding.

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 explains the payment mechanism and the two modes (paid vs unpaid response). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'osm_geocode'. The usage context is implied through the payment requirement but not explicitly stated.

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