reverse_geocode

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns the 'best-match formatted address, address components, and coordinates,' and the phrase 'best-match' suggests approximate results. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and follow with return details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant information or filler.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what inputs are expected (covered in schema), and what outputs are returned. The annotations provide safety and idempotency context, making this sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 fully describes both required parameters (latitude and longitude) with types and valid ranges, giving 100% coverage. The description merely refers to a coordinate pair without adding extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score 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 tool's primary function: converting a latitude/longitude coordinate pair into a street address. It also specifies the return values, distinguishing it from the sibling tool geocode_address, which performs the inverse operation. The verb 'convert' and resource 'latitude/longitude coordinate pair' are specific 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 intended usage (when you have coordinates and need an address) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not state 'for address-to-coordinates, use geocode_address,' which would strengthen guidance. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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