alopeyk_get_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses the GET mapping and token requirement, suggesting idempotent read behavior. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, rate limits, or idempotence.

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 efficient: two sentences plus a bulleted Args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers all three parameters, the API method, and authentication. Minor gaps: no example usage or formatting guide, but overall sufficient for a simple reverse geocoding tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning via the Args section: 'lat: Latitude (-90..90), lng: Longitude (-180..180), instance: Configured instance to use.' This provides range and purpose beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 'Reverse-geocode a coordinate to a human-readable address,' which is a specific verb and resource. The Persian purpose and API endpoint further clarify. It distinguishes from siblings like alopeyk_location_suggestion.

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 mentions 'On-Demand, requires an access_token' and maps to a GET endpoint, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alopeyk_location_suggestion or alonomic_get_addresses.

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