Address or place name to coordinates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool returns ranked candidates with multiple fields (display name, coordinates, bounding box, address components, importance score), explains the significance of the importance score for handling ambiguity, names the data source (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), and transparently states the cost and payment mechanism. This is rich behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 four tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value/ambiguity handling, data source, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (candidates, display name, coordinates, bounding box, address components, importance score). It also covers cost, data source, and automatic payment behavior. For a single-parameter tool, this is comprehensive.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter (q) with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself, so it lands at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Forward geocoding' and explicitly states 'turn an address or place name into latitude/longitude', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'reverse_geocode'. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

It clearly states this is 'Forward geocoding', which implies the use case (address/place name → coordinates) and implicitly contrasts with reverse geocoding. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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