maps_geo

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

No annotations provided; description only states core behavior (convert address to coordinates) without disclosing details like precision, error handling, rate limits, or return format. Minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('convert structured address to coordinates'). No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and clear.

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-parameter geocoding tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and capabilities (including landmarks). Lacks output format details but is sufficient given low complexity.

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% and already describes both parameters ('address' and 'city') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 structured addresses to lat/lng coordinates, including landmarks and building names. It distinguishes from siblings like maps_regeocode (reverse geocode) and maps_text_search (text search).

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 usage for geocoding addresses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like maps_regeocode or maps_text_search. No when-not or conditions provided.

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