reverse_geocode

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the data source (GeoAPI.pt) and output structure, but omits operational details like rate limits, cost, error handling (e.g., for coordinates outside Portugal), or idempotency. The core behavior is communicated, but safety and performance cues are absent.

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 a single focused sentence of 16 words. It packs the action, input scope, output types, and data source with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, meeting the highest standard of conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. It references the data source and geographic scope. It could mention coordinate system (WGS84), but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context of Portugal-specific tools, it is sufficiently complete for selection.

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% with basic descriptions ('Latitude', 'Longitude'), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the coordinate must be within Portugal and that the result yields specific administrative areas (district, municipality, parish), which is not evident from the schema alone.

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's action ('reverse geocode'), the input (coordinate), and the output (district, municipality, parish) with geographic scoping ('in Portugal'). This is specific and distinguishes it from most siblings (e.g., weather tools), though it does not explicitly contrast with the 'municipality' sibling which could retrieve similar area names by different means.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'municipality' or 'postal_code'. The description implies use when you have lat/lon and need administrative divisions, but it does not state prerequisites, coordinate system assumptions, or when not to use it (e.g., for addresses or full postal codes).

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