geocode_adresse

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

While annotations mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds critical behavioral context: source attribution, precision limitations, and how to avoid using unreliable matches. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the confidence_low flag and type granularity.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: first states purpose and source, second explains output interpretation. No redundant information. Well-suited for quick consumption.

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?

Covers purpose, source, precision, and output interpretation effectively. Missing details like rate limits or authentication, but annotations (openWorldHint) suggest external dependencies. Completeness is adequate for a geocoding tool with clear output fields described.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds limited value for parameters. However, it compensates by explaining output fields (score, confidence_low, type) that clarify how input parameters affect results, which is helpful given no output schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool geocodes French addresses to GPS coordinates, specifies the data source (IGN Géoplateforme) and precision (street number). It distinguishes from siblings like reverse_geocode, which does the opposite operation.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on interpreting output fields (score, confidence_low, type) to assess reliability, including a threshold (>=0.8) and warning when confidence_low is true. However, does not explicitly compare to other tools for when to use alternatives.

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