makani_reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the backing service (official Dubai Municipality Makani public service) and the fact that no API key is needed. It also enumerates returned content, which overlaps the output schema but reinforces it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the second elaborates the data source and return contents. It is well-sized with no filler, though the return-value sentence partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

With rich annotations, a full-coverage schema, and an output schema in place, the description only needs to add the 'what' and the source/auth context, which it does. Nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing, though explicit sibling routing would have made it fully complete.

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% and both parameters carry WGS84 decimal-degree descriptions with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no coordinate-format or range detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find the Makani numbers and building at a Dubai coordinate,' which is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from the forward-looking siblings (makani_details, makani_validate) by framing the operation as reverse geocoding, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 '(no key)' note tells the agent authentication is not required, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against makani_details/makani_validate, so the agent must infer that this is the coordinate-to-Makani path.

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