reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned data, which is largely redundant with the existing output schema, and says nothing about rate limits, coverage gaps, or fallback behavior when no feature is found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, then the output summary. The enumeration of return fields is slightly padded given an output schema already exists, but nothing is confusing or 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?

Parameters are fully documented, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters here because search_overpass and get_bounds operate near this query space.

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%, including coordinate ranges and the zoom scale (0=country to 18=building/address). The description mentions only lat/lng and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Reverse geocode latitude and longitude coordinates') and enumerates what it yields (place name, address components, OSM details). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_overpass, which could also answer a 'what is here' question.

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 parenthetical 'what is here?' implies the query type this tool answers, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as search_overpass for tag-based lookups.

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