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 discloses that the tool uses the Nominatim OpenStreetMap API, implying an external network dependency, but does not mention rate limits, attribution requirements, or fallback behavior. This is moderate context but not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence with an appositive clarifying the API. It front-loads the action and result, with no wasted words or redundant detail.

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?

With a low-complexity tool, one fully described parameter, and an output schema (which presumably defines the coordinate structure), the description covers the core use case. It could mention usage policy or rate limits for the external API, but that is optional for basic invocation.

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 100%, with the query parameter fully described including examples. The description adds little beyond the schema—it restates that city names or addresses are accepted—so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'returns' coordinates (latitude/longitude) from a city name or address, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-weather or generate-image. The resource and output are explicit and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for geocoding queries and mentions the underlying API, giving clear context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though no similar sibling tool exists to differentiate against.

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