Geocodificar una dirección de Uruguay (IDE.uy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it names the official API, distinguishes result quality levels, and explains that when the API returns another street or the locality center, no coordinate is given. This is strong transparency for a read-only geocoder.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the output, source API, result-quality levels, failure condition, parameter tip, and corner syntax. Every sentence adds actionable information without repetition.

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 three-parameter read-only geocoder with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, API source, result quality, failure behavior, and a key parameter tip. The main remaining gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools such as ubicar_punto or localidad.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that direccion can be an address or corner and gives corner syntax examples, and it says localidad and departamento improve results. It does not fully explain expected formats or values for localidad/departamento, so the compensation is only partial.

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 operation: returning lat/lon coordinates for an address or street corner in Uruguay via the official IDE.uy API. It clearly defines the resource and scope, including result-quality categories. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ubicar_punto or localidad, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Offers useful usage advice: passing localidad and departamento greatly improves results, and corner addresses should be written as '18 de Julio y Ejido' or 'Artigas esq. Solari'. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as ubicar_punto or localidad, nor does it state exclusions.

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