regeocode

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

No annotations are provided, so description must bear full burden. It only states the conversion and precision level, but omits important behavioral traits like coverage area, error handling, rate limits, or response format. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Very concise: one sentence plus example. No fluff, but could be better structured with bullet points for readability. Still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description should hint at return value (e.g., address components). It doesn't. Schema covers params well, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline accuracy. Description reinforces the location format with an example but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Radius is explained in schema; description doesn't enhance it.

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 tool converts coordinates to administrative address with street-level precision, and provides a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools (geocode, text_search, around_search) by its reverse-geocoding nature.

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 reverse geocoding, and sibling names suggest different functionalities. However, no explicit guidance on when to use versus when not to, or alternatives.

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