Reverse Geocode

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds the three modes and parameter requirement but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like output size, rate limits, or potential errors. Given the annotations, the description provides some context but not beyond the schema.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and the detailed schema, the description covers the essential modes and requirements. It lacks some nuance (e.g., output description) but is sufficient for an agent with schema context. Could mention return type briefly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is well-documented. The tool description adds high-level mode guidance but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 geographic coordinates to address information, specifying three distinct modes (single-point, area, along path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like location_search (forward geocoding) without needing explicit comparison.

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 explicitly states the required parameter condition (at least one of coordinates, insideArea, along), guiding the agent on input requirements. However, it does not contrast with similar sibling tools (e.g., when to prefer reverse_geocode over location_search), missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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