geocodage_inverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full address, commune, and postal code, based on the Base Adresse Nationale. However, it does not mention any limitations, error handling, data freshness, or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, input, and data source, with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the essential aspects such as the data source (BAN) and the returned fields (address, commune, postal code). However, it could optionally mention coordinate format or error handling for completeness, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Longitude (ex : 2.3088 pour Paris)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies without enhancement.

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 verb 'Trouve' (finds) and the resource 'l'adresse française correspondant à des coordonnées GPS' (reverse geocoding). It specifies the exact functionality, which is distinct from all sibling tools that focus on administrative or simulation tasks.

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 converting GPS coordinates to French addresses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Since no sibling tool performs similar functions, the context is clear, but guidance is minimal.

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