maps_geo

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

没有任何注解，描述需承担行为披露的全部责任。虽然提到了GCJ-02坐标系这一有效细节，但未说明返回格式、请求限制、认证要求或错误处理行为。对于无注解工具，信息量不足以让代理预知调用后的结果和边界情况。

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?

描述用一句话完成：动词、资源、坐标系和语言范围都已包含，信息密度高且无冗余。结构上先给出核心功能，再补充输入支持范围，简洁有效。

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?

没有输出schema，描述未说明返回坐标的结构或数据格式；也未提到地理编码失败时的行为、无法解析地址的处理或精度限制。参数虽少但缺少返回与边界信息，对于无注解的简单工具仍显不完整。

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描述覆盖率为100%，两个参数在schema中已有清晰说明。描述额外补充'支持中文地址、地标名称'，扩展了address参数的输入语义，但整体未超出schema太多，符合覆盖率高的基线评分3。

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?

描述以'地理编码'开头，明确说明将结构化地址转换为高德经纬度坐标（GCJ-02），动词和资源具体清晰。虽然未直接与兄弟工具对比，但'地理编码'与'maps_regeocode'、'maps_ip_location'的语义天然区分，代理能够理解其用途。

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?

描述未说明何时应使用此工具而非maps_regeocode或maps_ip_location，也没有提供排除条件或替代场景。仅通过'地理编码'这一行为隐含了'有地址需要坐标时使用'的上下文，缺少显式路由指引。

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