reverse_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the sole burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates well by explicitly stating the operation is read-only, uses offline geodata, and contacts no external service, which are key behavioral traits for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage context, an explicit read-only note, and clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information without 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what the inputs mean, and what the response shape is. No critical information for invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must define the parameters itself. It does so by stating lat and lon are in decimal degrees, adding meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's bare 'number' type. It could add ranges or validation expectations, but the core meaning is clear.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Resolve GPS coordinates to a place name using Immich's own offline geodata.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by noting the offline nature and by tying its use to get_map_markers or asset EXIF coordinates.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to name the location of a marker from get_map_markers or an asset's EXIF coordinates. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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