Search French addresses

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided, the description adds valuable context about the data source (BAN via IGN Géoplateforme) and the exact return fields including relevance score and WGS84 coordinates. It does not cover rate limits or error modes, but the annotations lighten that burden.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return info and usage. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fills the gap by enumerating return fields and the data source. Input parameters are fully covered by the schema, and annotations handle the safety profile, so the agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond 'free-text', and the baseline score 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 gives a specific verb ('Geocode') and resource ('free-text French address') and names the authoritative data source. The forward-geocoding intent clearly distinguishes it from the sibling reverse_geocode tool, even without naming it.

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 states a clear primary use case ('normalise or locate an address') but does not name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool over siblings such as reverse_geocode or list_communes.

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