Find coordinates for a place

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only nature ('looks up') and the main output ('coordinates'), but it does not disclose that multiple candidates may be returned, that results may be ambiguous, or how the response is structured. This is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action ('looks up coordinates') is front-loaded, followed by the object and use case. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only geocoding tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input scope, the output concept, and the routing use case. It does not specify the response format, but the title and description together make the tool's purpose and behavior sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying that 'query' can be a place name, address, or POI, but it does not add significant explanation for limit, language, near_lat, or near_lon beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb ('looks up'), a clear resource ('coordinates for a place name, address or POI'), and a concrete use case ('as a routing waypoint'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plan_route or compare_profiles, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context by tying the tool's output to routing waypoints, implying it should be used whenever a place needs to be converted to coordinates before route planning. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but no sibling tool performs geocoding, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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