market_geocode_address

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by flagging the API as experimental and by revealing that latitude/longitude are parsed from API tuple positions rather than provided as first-class fields.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, experimental status, and return behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important detail is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and a straightforward purpose, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by noting a typical use case or explicitly contrasting with reverse geocoding, but nothing critical is missing for 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, and the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the input is free-form address/place text, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction ('Find address suggestions') and identifies the tool as an experimental map API. It clearly conveys forward geocoding, though it does not explicitly name market_reverse_geocode as the opposite sibling to sharpen differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool compared with siblings like market_reverse_geocode. The phrase 'address suggestions' implies a forward-geocoding/autocomplete use case, but the description leaves the selection logic to inference.

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