map_reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinate format and the critical platform-specific coordinate system constraint (GCJ-02 for Amap, BD-09 for Baidu) and warns against cross-platform mixing. However, it does not mention return format or other behavioral details.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing key usage constraints. Every sentence is necessary and succinct, with no waste.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., address structure). Given the complexity (different coordinate systems), the description is informative but incomplete regarding the output, which an agent needs to know.

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 100%, providing baseline descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the coordinate format and platform-specific coordinate bindings beyond the schema, which is helpful for correct invocation.

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's purpose: reverse geocoding (converting coordinates to readable address). It specifies the coordinate format and warns about platform coordinate system differences, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like map_geocode (forward geocoding).

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 when to use (convert coordinates to address) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling tools. It includes a platform binding caution but lacks explicit usage context or alternatives.

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