geocode_oneline_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (matched address, interpolated coordinates, Tigerline ID, range components) but says nothing about error behavior for unmatched addresses, rate limits, or the benchmark default's effect. Geocoding is inherently read-only, so the omission of safety disclosure is less damaging than it would be for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return values. The inline example partially duplicates the schema's example, which is a small redundancy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The main remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior for addresses that do not match.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: missing city/state/ZIP fields may be omitted or represented by bare commas, which is not stated in the schema. The benchmark parameter is left entirely to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Geocode a single address provided as one line') and gives a concrete example. The 'single address / one line' framing implicitly separates it from batch_geocode_* and geocode_parsed_address, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the 'one line' phrasing tells the agent this is for unparsed input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. geocode_parsed_address for structured fields). The note on omitted city/state/ZIP is format guidance, not routing guidance.

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