road_geocode_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and nondestructive. The description adds behavioral context: it uses GWR-based registry, returns EGAID/EGID, and explains that missing addresses may not be officially registered. This enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and front-loaded purpose. While somewhat lengthy, it earns its length by providing valuable context without being overly verbose.

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, the description covers return fields, data source, registry details, and usage tips. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly, especially with the existing output schema.

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 already has detailed parameter descriptions (in German), so baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces address format examples but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Swiss addresses to GPS coordinates using the official federal registry. It uses specific verbs ('Convert') and distinguishes from general geocoders by emphasizing verified, legally registered addresses.

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 implies it's for Swiss addresses and notes it's a Phase 4 tool with no API key, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like sibling tools. It gives contextual hints about data authority but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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