reverse_geocode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result includes structured address, surrounding POI, and road information, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any API requirements, rate limits, or error cases. For a conversion tool, this is moderately transparent but not fully comprehensive.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant output details. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the fact that all parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at the output richness. It lacks usage guidance and explicit read-only disclosure, but the schema and tool name cover much of the needed context. A 5 would require more detail on return format or edge cases.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema by stating output components (POI, roads) that relate to the 'extensions' and 'radius' parameters, but it does not delve into parameter syntax or additional meaning. The schema already provides clear descriptions and an example for location.

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's function: '将经纬度坐标转换为详细的地址信息' (convert latitude/longitude coordinates to detailed address information). It uses a specific verb 'convert' and identifies the resource (coordinates to address), and explicitly mentions outputs like structured address, surrounding POI, and road info. This distinguishes it from sibling 'geocode' (forward geocoding) and other POI search tools.

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 gives clear context: the tool converts coordinates to addresses, implying use when an agent has coordinates and needs a human-readable address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with 'geocode' and other siblings is clear from the reverse conversion nature. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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