Geocode Rappi address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., but the description adds 'unofficial' (implying potential instability) and 'Street redacted by default' (privacy behavior). These go beyond annotations and give the agent useful expectations about the data source and output.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only and redaction details are placed concisely. Very efficient.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the privacy modes, the response structure, or how response_format affects output. The agent is left without enough information to call the tool correctly beyond basic usage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (latitude, longitude, privacy_mode, response_format). It mentions redaction but not what privacy_mode or response_format do, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('unofficial users-address/address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_addresses or create_address. It also notes read-only and redaction behavior, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies the use case (resolve lat/lng to address) and mentions read-only and redaction, which provide context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but given it is the only geocoding tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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