geocode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the input types and the conversion action; it does not describe the output format, coordinate system, error handling, or behavior when an address is ambiguous or not found. This is a significant gap for a geocoding 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('将地址转换为经纬度坐标') and then adds a brief capability note. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It confirms the core operation and accepted input types, but omits behavioral expectations like return format and failure handling, and gives no usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description's statement about supporting structured addresses and landmark names adds minor semantic clarification that aligns with the address parameter examples, but it does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool converts addresses to latitude/longitude coordinates, which is a specific verb+resource action. It also notes support for structured addresses and landmark names, which helps distinguish it from reverse_geocode and coordinate_convert, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like reverse_geocode or search_poi. The mention of supporting structured addresses and landmark names implies accepted input types, but there is no context about when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist.

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