address_at_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'find the addresses closest' but omits details like handling of no results, coordinate validity outside Norway, the exact return format, or any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence that gets the purpose across efficiently. While it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing key points), it is concise and 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?

Given the complexity of reverse geocoding with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or how parameters like radius/limit affect results, but the schema partially compensates. Gaps remain in anticipated context.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states it performs reverse geocoding (addresses from lat/lon) and specifies the geographic scope (Norway). It distinguishes from siblings: elevation_at_point is for elevation, search_address/search_placename are forward geocoding. This leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use when the user has coordinates and wants to know what is there.' It implicitly tells when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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