eo_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (display_name, center, bbox) which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any failure modes, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a geocoding tool, read-only behavior is likely obvious, but the description could be more explicit about non-mutating nature and error handling.

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 concise, starting with the core action in the first sentence. It then neatly separates Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured for quick scanning.

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 tool with a single parameter and a described return format, the description is complete. It explains the input and output sufficiently for an agent to call it correctly. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need to describe the return value in detail. Nothing essential 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?

The schema provides no description for place_name (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: 'Location name, city, or geographic feature' plus three examples ('Valencia, Spain', 'Lake Tahoe', 'Imperial Valley'). This gives the agent clear guidance on what input is acceptable, far beyond the bare schema.

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 geocodes a place name into a WGS84 bounding box. It uses a specific verb (geocode) and resource (place name), and gives concrete examples. It stands out distinctly from all sibling tools, none of which are geocoding-related, so no confusion arises.

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 implies usage: when you have a place name and need a bounding box or coordinates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or mention that it is the go-to for geocoding among siblings. Since there are no similar siblings, this is not a critical gap, but the guidance is only implicit.

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