reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the extra bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the lookup is scoped to a local geocache of previously seen places, which signals that unknown coordinates may yield no result. It does not say what happens on a cache miss (empty result vs error).

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?

A single sentence with the operation front-loaded and the critical scope constraint parenthetically attached; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the cache-miss behavior, which the description hints at ('only already-seen places') but never resolves.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it largely does not: it only implies the two numbers are coordinates. Units, precision, and coordinate ordering are left entirely to the agent's prior knowledge, though the -90/90 and -180/180 bounds in the schema mitigate this somewhat.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up an address for coordinates') and adds a scope qualifier ('in the Recorder's geocache (only already-seen places)') that makes it functionally distinct from the sibling location tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is confused with, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

'Only already-seen places' implies a usage boundary (it will not resolve arbitrary coordinates), but the description never states when to reach for this versus the other location tools, nor what to do when the coordinate is not cached. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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