nominatim_search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It names the upstream service (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), which hints at rate-limit and attribution behavior, but it does not state limits, auth needs, or result format. It adds some value but leaves behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the source. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structure beyond the single clause.

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 simple 2-param search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. But with no annotations it should say more about rate limits, attribution, or what a result contains; as written it is minimum viable.

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% and both parameters are documented there (query, limit with default 5 and max 20). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Clear verb (geocode) and resource (place name or address to coordinates) plus the data source (OpenStreetMap Nominatim). The sibling 'nominatim_reverse' handles reverse geocoding, so the forward direction is distinguishable, but the description doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state the direction contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the forward geocoding framing, but the description offers no when-to-use or when-not (e.g. versus mapbox_geocode_forward, geojs_lookup, or yelp_search_businesses). It does not say when forward geocoding is preferable to reverse.

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