geocode_parsed_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does well by listing the returned fields (matched address, interpolated coordinates, Tigerline ID, address range components) and the unsupported address type. It stops short of noting error behavior, network/auth requirements, or how unmatched addresses are reported.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input requirements, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned components, so an agent knows what to expect back. Input requirements and the unsupported PR case are also covered, leaving no material gap for a single-address geocoder.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the conditional combination requirement (street+zip vs street+city+state), which the schema alone only expresses as a single required 'street' field. It adds no detail on the benchmark parameter or coordinate precision.

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 (geocode) and resource (a single US address with fields parsed into separate components), which also differentiates it from the sibling geocode_oneline_address. The return payload (matched address, interpolated coordinates, Tigerline ID, range components) is named up front, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

It gives concrete input conditions ('street and zip OR street, city, and state must be provided') and a negative scope boundary ('Does NOT support Puerto Rico addresses with Urbanization/Municipio'). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for those PR cases (geocode_pr_address), so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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