geocode

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior (parsing address to lng,lat coordinate string) and output format via example. However, it does not address edge cases (e.g., unresolved address, multiple matches) or any limitations.

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?

Single sentence with an example, no redundant words. Information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 simple geocoding tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output. It lacks details on error handling or result format variations, but the example compensates partially. Given no annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., city is optional, address is structured). Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('解析', parse/resolve) and resource ('结构化地址' to '经纬度坐标'), with a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'regeocode' (reverse), 'text_search', 'around_search' by being specifically address-to-coordinates.

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?

Description implies usage context (structured address to coordinates) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'regeocode' or 'text_search'. No exclusions or comparison given.

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