nominatim_reverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the upstream provider (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), but omits rate limits, attribution requirements, error behavior, and any explicit read-only/safety statement.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the operation and the underlying service.

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 low-complexity tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and provider. It does not describe the return structure or practical API constraints, leaving it minimally complete but thin.

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%, but the schema descriptions are bare labels ('Latitude.' and 'Longitude.'). The tool description adds no parameter meaning such as coordinate order, format, or reference system, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: reverse geocoding coordinates to an address using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. It distinguishes the operation from forward geocoding in general, but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative nominatim_search or mapbox_geocode_reverse.

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 phrase 'Reverse geocode coordinates to an address' implies the intended use case when an agent has coordinates and wants address data. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many geocoding tools.

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