market_reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is an 'Experimental map API' and the result is 'the nearest address estimate for that point, not a verified address' — an important accuracy caveat that no annotation conveys.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the accuracy caveat. Every sentence carries information; the phrasing is slightly compressed but no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the accuracy caveat and experimental status; the only real gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance versus the forward-geocoding sibling.

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 description coverage is 100% (latitude/longitude both documented with ranges), so the baseline is 3. The description's note about 'capitalized Lat and Lon query parameters' adds transport-level detail, but it conflicts with the lowercase schema property names, making it as likely to confuse as to help.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Resolve coordinates into address fields and display_name'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling market_geocode_address. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by direction rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for coordinate→address lookups, but there is no explicit 'use this when you have lat/lon; use market_geocode_address when you have a street address.' No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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