geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the external dependency on the Nominatim OpenStreetMap API, which hints at a network call and third-party availability, but it omits well-known operational traits such as rate limits, no-result/error behavior, or whether a single best match is returned.

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 no filler; purpose, input, and output are each stated once and nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is operational behavior for a network-backed tool (errors, rate limits, ambiguous matches), which keeps it just short of complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('검색할 도시 이름 또는 주소'). The description's mention of city name or address adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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?

The description states a specific verb (return), resource (latitude/longitude coordinates), and input (city name or address), and even names the underlying service (Nominatim OpenStreetMap API). It is trivially distinguishable from the unrelated siblings greet, generate-image, and calculator.

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 says what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it, what address formats are acceptable (full street address vs. city name only), or how ambiguous queries are resolved. No alternatives exist among the siblings, but the lack of any input-condition guidance leaves usage entirely implicit.

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