makani_reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs reverse geocoding, returns building, community, emirate names (bilingual), and each Makani number with coordinates and short URL. It also notes no key is required. It could mention limitations (e.g., only works for Dubai coordinates, any rate limits), but overall provides good behavioral context.

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 two sentences: a concise first sentence summarizing the tool, followed by a second sentence providing details. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values extensively. However, it lists the key outputs (building, community, emirate names in English and Arabic, plus each Makani number with coordinates and short URL). For a simple two-parameter tool, this is complete and provides sufficient context.

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% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description adds only the context of 'Dubai coordinate' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. 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's purpose: 'Find the Makani numbers and building at a Dubai coordinate'. It specifies the reverse geocoding against the official Dubai Municipality Makani public service, and lists the outputs (building, community, emirate names in English and Arabic, plus Makani numbers with coordinates and short URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like makani_validate and makani_details.

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 mentions 'no key', indicating no API key is needed, and specifies the source as the Dubai Municipality public service. It implies usage when a Dubai coordinate is available and Makani data is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternative tools.

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