geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully identifies the external dependency (Nominatim OpenStreetMap), hinting at network latency and rate limits, but lacks explicit details about error handling, what happens when addresses are not found, or idempotency.

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 efficient sentence with a parenthetical data source attribution. It is appropriately front-loaded with no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple 2-parameter schema with 100% coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward geocoding tool. It identifies the return value type (coordinates) and data source, though it could benefit from mentioning error scenarios.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description conceptually maps to the 'query' parameter (도시명 또는 주소) but adds no additional semantic guidance beyond the schema descriptions, such as address formatting tips or the significance of the 'limit' parameter.

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 states the tool converts city names or addresses into latitude/longitude coordinates using specific verbs (반환합니다) and identifies the resource (위도·경도 좌표). It distinguishes clearly from unrelated siblings like calc, generate-image, and greet.

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?

While the unique name makes the purpose obvious among siblings, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention whether to use this before get-weather when only a city name is available.

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