geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the lookup uses Nominatim, is limited to Irish place names, and returns candidate matches with name and coordinates. However, it omits operational details such as rate limits, ambiguity handling, and whether an empty result is expected when no Irish place matches.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. There is no filler, and every clause contributes useful information for selecting or calling the tool.

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 the description need not explain return values in depth, and it does summarize the key return fields. Still, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage on its inputs, the description leaves gaps around the 'limit' parameter and expected query format that would help an agent call it correctly.

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 schema does not explain the parameters. The description implies that 'query' is an Irish place name, but it never explains the 'limit' parameter (default 5) or how it controls the number of returned candidates. It therefore only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource ('look up an Irish place name') and names the backing service (Nominatim), so the agent knows this is a geocoding lookup rather than a routing tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like route_details or plan_route, but the purpose is clear enough to select it for place-name lookups.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as route_details, plan_route, or pick_points. The Irish-place-name scope is stated, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow context to help the agent decide when geocoding is the right call.

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