geocode

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses fallback strategy and return structure (name, lat, lon, bbox, source). Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but output format is clearly specified.

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?

Description is concise (4 lines) with clear sections: purpose, fallback, usage tip, output. Every sentence adds value 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?

Tool has single parameter and output schema. Description covers all key aspects: purpose, method (with fallback), usage hint, and return fields. Complete for a simple geocoding tool, though error behavior not addressed.

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 0% (no description for 'query' parameter). Description adds guidance to use concise names, but does not specify expected format (e.g., country, commas). Partially compensates but could be more detailed.

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 resolves a place name to coordinates and bounding box, using explicit verb and resource. No sibling tool performs geocoding, so no differentiation needed.

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 specific usage advice (use concise names) and explains fallback behavior (Gazet then Nominatim). Could be more explicit about when to use versus alternatives, but siblings do not compete.

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