geocode_reverse

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns the closest addresses/places/parcels and accepts point or geometry input, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, default behavior (e.g., index default), or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence, very concise with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and API source. However, for a tool with 15 parameters, a bulleted list of return types or key options could improve scannability.

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 complexity (15 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks explanation of default index (address), the difference between point and geometry search, or what the results contain. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps that the rich parameter schema partially fills.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context (e.g., searchgeom can be Circle) but does not provide new meaning beyond the detailed parameter descriptions in the schema. It rephrases but does not deepen understanding.

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 identifies the tool as reverse geocoding via the IGN API, specifying it returns addresses, places, and parcels closest to a geographic point or geometry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode, which likely does forward geocoding) by explicitly stating 'reverse 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings (geocode, geocode_capabilities) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for selection.

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